In a California court last month, two restraining orders were issued by a judge, prohibiting immigration officials from intercepting illegal immigrants “without reasonable suspicion,” and allowing those arrested to meet with lawyers and receive assistance. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the original ruling, leading the Trump administration to file the case “Noem v. Perdomo” in the Supreme Court on August 7th.
On the 12th, the defendant submitted a response as requested by the chief justice. On the same day, both supporters and opponents submitted amicus briefs to the court.
The case dates back to early June when the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency arrested 45 illegal immigrants in Southern California, sparking widespread protests and riots in the Los Angeles area. President Trump deployed the National Guard followed by Marines to California, while Governor Newsom and local officials accused the federal government of interfering in local affairs.
Immigrant groups filed a lawsuit on July 2nd, with plaintiffs including Pedro Vasquez Perdomo, Jason Brian Gavidia, and five others, three union organizations, and the Bet Tzedek Immigration Defenders Center suing 12 federal senior officials responsible for immigration enforcement in Los Angeles.
The five Latino individuals had experiences of being stopped or detained in June, all of whom have since been released or bailed, either being U.S. citizens, dual citizens, or having children who are U.S. citizens. The three union organizations are the United Farm Workers Union with about 10,000 members, the Los Angeles Workers’ Center Network with eight affiliates and over 3,800 members, and the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA), which has 50,000 active members in California, including U.S. citizens, legal residents, and illegal immigrants.
On July 4th, the plaintiffs filed two motions for temporary restraining orders to halt “unreasonable searches and undocumented arrests in the Los Angeles area” and to allow lawyers to meet with those arrested.
Subsequently, on July 11th, Federal District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong issued two temporary restraining orders, prohibiting law enforcement from detaining suspected illegal immigrants without reasonable suspicion and ensuring detainees receive assistance from legal counsel.
Frimpong, a Black female judge nominated by former President Biden, ruled that federal immigration officials cannot base reasonable suspicion solely on race, language, residence, or employment (whether individually or in combination), citing “substantial evidence” that federal agents in Los Angeles and six other counties conducted arrests based on these factors, which violated the Fourth Amendment.
Governor Newsom stated on the day of the ruling, “Today, justice has been served, the court’s decision temporarily stops federal immigration officials from infringing on civil rights and engaging in racial profiling.” He expressed concerns that federal officials were not targeting the most dangerous individuals but indiscriminately detaining American citizens and hardworking people, calling for the Trump administration to abide by the rule of law established by the founding fathers.
However, there were differing reactions to the decision by the district judge. While the ruling halted federal law enforcement’s targeted raids and arrests of illegal immigrants in the Central and Southern California regions with high populations of undocumented individuals, it may have broader implications; law enforcement officers may also face contempt of court risks.
Assistant Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Tricia McLaughlin, stated through a release that “an individual becomes an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) target for arrest due to their illegal residence in the United States, not because of race and ethnicity.” She further mentioned that courageous Americans are apprehending the worst elements within communities – murderers, MS-13 gang members, child predators, and rapists, with 70% of those arrested by ICE being convicted illegal immigrant criminals or pending prosecution. She emphasized the importance of upholding law and order.
The federal government appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to lift the temporary restraining order. On August 1st, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court upheld Judge Frimpong’s ruling, rejecting the government’s application.
The panel believed that “the individual plaintiffs have sufficiently demonstrated the future harm they may suffer, qualifying for injunctive relief,” and that “if ICE is not engaging in unconstitutional interceptions as it claims, it should not oppose being prohibited from carrying out such actions.”
Among the three judges, Ronald M. Gould and Marsha S. Berzon were nominated by former President Clinton, and Jennifer Sung was nominated by former President Biden. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass praised the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling as a “victory for the rule of law and the city of Los Angeles.”
On August 7th, the Solicitor General, Dean John Sauer, representing the government, filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court. He argued that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing to sue because there was no basis to assume they would be detained again.
Sauer believed that Frimpong’s restraining order still “hinders law enforcement work” and “disregards” a recent Supreme Court decision regarding the prohibition of “universal injunctions.” He requested the Supreme Court justices issue a stay to temporarily suspend Frimpong’s restraining order, stating that each day the district court’s order is enforced, “law enforcement officers in the most populous regions of the country face the threat of judicial contempt, fearing that their sincere efforts to enforce federal law may be retroactively deemed in violation of an impactful, unlawful, and vaguely defined injunction.”
Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, nominated by former President Obama, will oversee the case of “Noem v. Perdomo,” with defendant Perdomo and counsel responding on the 12th as requested. Both supporters and opponents have submitted amicus briefs; the Federation for American Immigration Reform submitted a brief supporting the Department of Homeland Security Secretary, while the Los Angeles County and 20 California cities submitted a brief opposing the plaintiffs, requesting the denial of a request to postpone the enforcement of the restraining order.