Federal appeals court judges upheld a district court decision temporarily halting immigration enforcement officers from making warrantless arrests in parts of Southern California solely based on race, language, occupation and locations like car washes and Home Depots.
A three-judge panel at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled late Friday that the widespread federal immigration enforcement stops that started in June were conducted without reasonable suspicion and denied an attempt by the federal government to overturn the restraining order.
“We agree with the district court that, in the context of the Central District of California, the four enumerated factors at issue—apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent, particular location, and type of work, even when considered together—describe only a broad profile and ‘do not demonstrate reasonable suspicion for any particular stop,’” reads the 61-page opinion published on Aug. 1.
To read the full ruling, click here.
The ruling stems from a lawsuit spearheaded by the ACLU, on behalf of five people arrested in Los Angeles county and immigrant rights organizations, alleging federal immigration officers are racially profiling people and using excessive force to make warrantless stops.
Last month, a U.S. district court judge temporarily blocked the Department of Homeland Security from detaining people in Southern California solely based on their race, language or occupation.
The judge also ordered that detainees be allowed access to legal representation.
[Read: Federal Judge Orders Immigration Agents to Halt Stops Based on Race]
The temporary restraining order covers the U.S. Central District of California, which includes the counties of Orange County, Los Angeles, San Luis Obispo, Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Bernardino and Riverside.
Mohammad Tajsar, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU, said the appeal court’s decision to uphold the temporary restraining order further confirms that the roving federal immigration sweeps violate the constitution and have “caused irreparable injury across the region.”
“We look forward to holding the federal government accountable for these authoritarian horrors it unleashed in Southern California, and we invite every person of conscience to join us in defending the integrity and freedom of communities of color across the country,” he said in a Friday news release.
Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, said unelected judges are undermining the will of the people and denied allegations that they are racially profiling people.
“What makes someone a target of ICE is if they are illegally in the U.S.—NOT their skin color, race, or ethnicity. America’s brave men and women are removing murderers, MS-13 gang members, pedophiles, rapists—truly the worst of the worst from Golden State communities,” she said in a Saturday emailed statement.
“70% of ICE arrests are of criminal illegal aliens who have been convicted or have pending charges. President Trump and Secretary Noem are putting the American people first by removing illegal aliens who pose a threat to our communities.”
Data from the Department of Homeland Security shows an overwhelming majority of the over 3,400 people detained in California are considered “no ICE threat.”
As of July 21, 83% of people – 2,877 detainees – are listed as no threats.
Officials in both Anaheim and Santa Ana voted in July to join the ACLU’s lawsuit against the ICE raids after the restraining order went into effect.
Santa Ana also joined a host of cities in the region filing a court document known as an amicus brief against the efforts by the federal government to overturn the restraining order.
“Over the past few weeks, however, Defendants have sought to destabilize our region through a shock-and-awe campaign of unlawful immigration enforcement,” reads the brief filed on July 21.
“The cities and county that the federal government has chosen as its epicenter for immigration raids—have seen their residents terrorized and their resources strained by roving sweeps conducted by masked and heavily armed federal agents who choose targets based on little more than the color of their skin, the languages they speak, and their place of employment.”
To read the full amicus brief, click here.
Friday’s ruling comes after the federal government challenged the temporary restraining order in court on Monday before the three-judge panel, arguing that immigration enforcement agents have been making warrantless arrests and stops based on reasonable suspicion not racial profiling.
U.S. Department of Justice Attorney Jacob Roth argued that they were not given ample time to respond and dispute evidence collected by the ACLU before the restraining order was granted and that the arrests made were targeted.
Roth also said considering factors like race, language, occupation and location together is appropriate when trying to establish reasonable suspicion.
“There’s definitely no policy of conducting detentions without reasonable suspicion,” Roth said at the July 28th hearing.
“We believe the four factors alone could, in appropriate circumstances, support reasonable suspicion,” Roth added. “We certainly are saying those four factors under the Fourth Amendment are not categorically inadequate.”
Tajsar, the ACLU attorney, argued the federal government has put pressure on their immigration enforcement agents to ramp up detentions.
“They have said, if it ends in handcuffs, go out there and do it. Now they’re not going to say, go out and violate the law but there’s been a wink and a nod from leadership to agents on the ground that says, you know what dispatch with the ordinary rigors of the law and go out there and snatch anybody up,” he said at the July 28 hearing.
“I don’t think there’s any possibility for the district court not to have issued this (temporary restraining order) and I would ask that this Court not disturb the district court’s well reasoned analysis.”
Hosam Elattar is a Voice of OC reporter. Contact him at helattar@voiceofoc.org or on Twitter @ElattarHosam.
