9th circuit court upholds prohibition on unconstitutional enforcement actions

On August 1, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a temporary restraining order (TRO) that blocks the Trump administration's immigration enforcement tactics in Southern California. The court found that federal agents conducted stops and arrests based solely on factors such as race, language, location, and occupation, without reasonable suspicion, violating the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Los Angeles Times | 9th Circuit keeps freeze on Southern California ICE patrols

• The ruling leaves in place a temporary restraining order barring masked and heavily armed agents from snatching people off the streets of Southern California without first establishing reasonable suspicion that they are in the U.S. illegally.

• The ruling scolded the Department of Justice for “misreading” the restraining order it sought to block.

Washington Post | Appeals court upholds block on indiscriminate immigration sweeps in L.A. area

The order applies to the seven counties that fall within the Central District: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Ventura.

The three judges with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit — two appointed by President Bill Clinton and the third by President Joe Biden — wrote in their ruling upholding the order that attorneys for the federal government had argued that the plaintiffs could not show a sufficient likelihood of future injury occurring without the temporary order, nor could they show a “real and immediate threat” that they will be harmed again.

The judges — Ronald Gould, Marsha Berzon and Jennifer Sung — added in their ruling that it was important to note that the defendants in their motion to suspend the temporary order did not dispute that the stops “have been based solely on the four enumerated factors” of race, language, location and job. “They did not challenge the district court’s findings that those stops are part of a pattern of conduct that has apparent official approval. And, finally, they did not meaningfully dispute the district court’s conclusion that sole reliance on the four enumerated factors, alone or in combination, does not satisfy the constitutional requirement of reasonable suspicion.”

AP News | Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps

A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing Monday afternoon at which the federal government asked the court to overturn a temporary restraining order issued July 12 by Judge Maame E. Frimpong, arguing it hindered their enforcement of immigration law.

Immigrant advocacy groups filed suit last month accusing President Donald Trump’s administration of systematically targeting brown-skinned people in Southern California during the administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration. The lawsuit included three detained immigrants and two U.S. citizens as plaintiffs.

In her order, Frimpong said there was a “mountain of evidence” that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. She wrote the government cannot use factors such as apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone’s occupation as the only basis for reasonable suspicion to detain someone.

Read the CA for U.S. joint statement condemning the raids and calling for meaningful policy reform.