A federal appeals court has upheld a pivotal decision that temporarily restricts federal agents from arresting and detaining immigrants in Los Angeles without probable cause. On August 1, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court's temporary restraining order, reinforcing constitutional protections against indiscriminate arrests. This ruling is a significant development in the ongoing legal challenges to immigration enforcement tactics in Southern California.
The appellate court's decision mandates that federal immigration agents must possess specific, individualized probable cause before making an arrest. This effectively prohibits detentions based solely on broad factors such as ethnicity, language, or a person's presence at a particular location. The ruling aims to prevent mass raids and racial profiling within Los Angeles's diverse immigrant communities, addressing long-standing concerns about enforcement practices.
This affirmation stems from a temporary restraining order initially issued in July 2025 by Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Judge Frimpong's original ruling cited a "mountain of evidence" indicating that agents were conducting arrests based on factors like race, accents, or occupation, which she found to be in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The appeals court noted that these arrests appeared to be "part of a pattern of officially sanctioned behavior" that was "likely to recur" without judicial intervention.
The lawsuit was initiated by civil rights organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Public Counsel, on behalf of various immigrant rights groups and individuals. Attorneys for the Department of Homeland Security had argued against the injunction, asserting it would impede federal operations and even sought a $30 million bond for agent training, a request the lower court denied. They contended that agents should not be unduly restricted in their enforcement efforts.
Mohammad Tajsar, a senior staff attorney at the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, welcomed the ruling. He stated that the decision was "further confirmation that this administration’s paramilitary invasion of Los Angeles violated the Constitution and caused irreparable injury across the region." Mark Rosenbaum, a lawyer with Public Counsel, echoed this sentiment, emphasizing that the court's decision sends a crucial message that "the government cannot excuse illegal conduct by relying on racial profiling as a tool of immigration enforcement." This appellate decision marks another notable setback for the federal administration's immigration enforcement strategies.