Tuesday, October 14, 2025

9th Circuit keeps freeze on Southern California ICE patrols

Must read

Introduction to the Case

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dealt a stinging blow to the Trump administration’s mass deportation project Friday night in a fiery opinion upholding a lower court’s block on “roving patrols” across much of Southern California. 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.

Background of the Ruling

Under the 4th Amendment, reasonable suspicion cannot be based solely on race, ethnicity, language, location or employment, either alone or in combination, U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong of Los Angeles wrote in her original order. 9th Circuit Judges Marsha S. Berzon, Jennifer Sung and Ronald M. Gould agreed. “There is no predicate action that the individual plaintiffs would need to take, other than simply going about their lives, to potentially be subject to the challenged stops,” the opinion said.

Fourth Amendment Injunctions

Fourth Amendment injunctions are hard to win, experts say. Plaintiffs must show not only that they were hurt, but that they are likely to be hurt again in the same way in the future. One way to meet that test in court is to show the injury is the product of a government policy. Throughout a hearing Monday, the appellate judges repeatedly probed that question, roughly doubling the administration’s time to respond in an effort to get an answer.

Government Policy and the 4th Amendment

After the district court injunction here, the secretary of Homeland Security said, ‘We are going to continue doing what we’re doing’ — so that’s not a policy? Berzon asked. “The policy is to follow the 4th Amendment and to require reasonable suspicion,” said Deputy Assistant Atty. Gen. Yaakov Roth. Roth also rebuffed questions about a 3,000-arrests-per-day quota first touted by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller in May.

Rejection of the Administration’s Argument

In a memo to the panel on Wednesday, Roth clarified that “no such goal” had been established. The court rejected that argument Friday, writing that “no official statement or express policy is required” to prove one exists. “Agents have conducted many stops in the Los Angeles area within a matter of weeks … some repeatedly in the same location,” the opinion said, making the likelihood of future stops “considerable.”

Impact of the Ruling

The ruling scolded the Department of Justice for “misreading” the restraining order it sought to block, and said it “mischaracterized” Judge Frimpong’s order. And it rejected the government’s central claim that its law enforcement mandate would be “chilled” by the district court’s order. “Defendants have failed to establish that they will be ‘chilled’ from their enforcement efforts at all, let alone in a manner that constitutes the ‘irreparable injury’ required to support a stay pending appeal,” the panel wrote.

Current Status of the Case

The case is still in its early phases, with hearings set for a preliminary injunction in September. But the “shock and awe” campaign of chaotic public arrests that first gripped Southern California on June 6 has all but ceased in the seven counties covered by Frimpong’s order: Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo.

Reaction to the Ruling

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, whose city was among a number of Southern California municipalities allowed to join the lawsuit this week, celebrated the news at a hastily arranged press conference late Friday night at Getty House, her official residence in Windsor Square. “This is a great day for Los Angeles,” she said, characterizing the court’s decision as a victory upholding the Constitution and affirming the rule of law.

Conclusion

The 9th Circuit’s ruling is a significant blow to the Trump administration’s deportation efforts, and it is likely to have a lasting impact on the immigration landscape in Southern California. The decision upholds the Constitution and affirms the rule of law, and it provides a sense of relief to the immigrant community in the region. However, the case is still in its early phases, and it is unclear how the administration will respond to the ruling.

FAQs

Q: What is the significance of the 9th Circuit’s ruling?
A: The ruling upholds a lower court’s block on "roving patrols" across much of Southern California, preventing masked and heavily armed agents from snatching people off the streets without first establishing reasonable suspicion that they are in the U.S. illegally.
Q: What is the current status of the case?
A: The case is still in its early phases, with hearings set for a preliminary injunction in September.
Q: How has the ruling impacted the immigrant community in Southern California?
A: The ruling has provided a sense of relief to the immigrant community in the region, as it has all but ceased the "shock and awe" campaign of chaotic public arrests that first gripped Southern California on June 6.
Q: What is the Trump administration’s likely response to the ruling?
A: It is unclear how the administration will respond to the ruling, but it has previously signaled its intent to fight judicial limits on its deportation efforts any way it can.

- Advertisement -spot_img

More articles

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

- Advertisement -spot_img

Latest article