On July 11, Federal District Court Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong (Central District, California) issued an important ruling imposing a temporary restraining order racial profiling in "roving" immigrant enforcement raids. Here is her summary of the issues in the case:
On June 6, 2025, federal law enforcement arrived in Los Angeles to participate in what federal officials have described as "the largest Mass Deportation Operation … in History…" The individuals and organizations who have brought this lawsuit argue that this operation had two key features, both of which were unconstitutional: "roving patrols" indiscriminately rounding up numerous individuals without reasonable suspicion and, having done so, denying these individuals access to lawyers who could help them navigate the legal process they found themselves in. On this, the federal government agrees: Roving patrols without reasonable suspicion violate the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution and denying access to lawyers violates the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. What the federal government would have this Court believe—in the face of a mountain of evidence presented in this case—is that none of this is actually happening.
Most of the questions before this Court are fairly simple and non-controversial, and both sides in this case agree on the answers.
• May the federal government conduct immigration enforcement—even large scale immigration enforcement—in Los Angeles? Yes, it may.
• Do all individuals—regardless of immigration status—share in the rights guaranteed by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution? Yes, they do.
• Is it illegal to conduct roving patrols which identify people based upon race alone, aggressively question them, and then detain them without a warrant, without their consent, and without reasonable suspicion that they are without status? Yes, it is.
• Is it unlawful to prevent people from having access to lawyers who can help them in immigration court? Yes, it is.
There are really two questions in controversy that this Court must decide today.
First, are the individuals and organizations who brought this lawsuit likely to succeed in proving that the federal government is indeed conducting roving patrols without reasonable suspicion and denying access to lawyers? This Court decides—based on all the evidence presented—that they are.
And second, what should be done about it? The individuals and organizations who have brought this lawsuit have made a fairly modest request: that this Court order the federal government to stop.
For the reasons stated below, the Court grants their request.
