The Trump administration intends to appeal a Los Angeles federal judge’s orders that call for an end to “roving patrols” and alleged racial profiling that have occurred for more than a month in Southern California during the administration’s nationwide mass deportation campaign.
According to court records filed Sunday with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, administration attorneys are preparing to challenge the ruling issued Friday by U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong.
“No federal judge has the authority to dictate immigration policy — that authority rests with Congress and the president,” White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement. “Enforcement operations require careful planning and execution; skills far beyond the purview or jurisdiction of any judge. We expect this gross overstep of judicial authority to be corrected on appeal.”
In Frimpong’s 52-page ruling, the judge prohibited immigration enforcement agents “from conducting detentive stops … unless the agent or officer has reasonable suspicion that the person to be stopped is within the United States in violation of U.S. immigration law.”
The order also bars agents from relying solely on factors such as race or ethnicity, speaking with an accent or being at bus stops, sites where day laborers are known to gather, car washes or agricultural locations as a basis for detaining people.
Frimpong found that federal agents have been “conducting roving patrols without reasonable suspicion” during a crackdown on undocumented immigrants in the LA area that began June 6.
The judge also ordered immigration agencies to make sure detained individuals have access to attorneys or legal advisers seven days a week and access to confidential telephone calls that are not “screened, recorded or otherwise monitored” at no charge to detainees.
White House border czar Tom Homan was critical of the court ruling.
“Look, we’re going to litigate that order, because I think the order’s wrong,” Homan said Sunday on CNN. “I mean, (Frimpong is) assuming that the officers don’t have reasonable suspicion. They don’t need probable cause to briefly detain and question somebody. They just need reasonable suspicion. And that’s based on many articulable facts.”
U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles Bill Essayli insisted that enforcement agencies have adhered to the law.
“We strongly disagree with the allegations in the lawsuit and maintain that our agents have never detained individuals without proper legal justification,” Essayli said in a social media post. “Our federal agents will continue to enforce the law and abide by the U.S. Constitution.”
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security was defiant on its social media pages: “A district judge is undermining the will of the American people. 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. LAW AND ORDER WILL PREVAIL!”
The administration’s notice of intent to appeal was the latest development in Vazquez-Perdomo et al. v. Noem et al. The lawsuit was filed July 2 in Los Angeles federal court. Plaintiffs include Public Counsel, the American Civil Liberties Union, advocacy groups, United Farm Workers and residents of Pasadena, Baldwin Park and East Los Angeles.
Attorneys for LA County and the cities of Los Angeles, Montebello, Monterey Park, Pasadena, Pico Rivera, Santa Monica, West Hollywood and Culver City filed a motion with Frimpong Monday formally asking to join the case as “intervenors” in support of the plaintiffs. They asked that a hearing on their motion be held Friday.
The individuals in the suit allege they were unlawfully stopped or detained by federal agents targeting locations where immigrant workers connect with employers. The suit also contends immigration agents do “roving patrols” and detain people without warrants whether they have actual proof they are in the country legally — two plaintiffs are U.S. citizens.
The lawsuit further alleges federal agencies violated the Constitution by doing unlawful immigration enforcement raids that target people based on agents’ perception of their race and ethnicity, as well as the denial of detainees constitutionally mandated due process.
According to the lawsuit, Homeland Security’s mass deportation program by armed, masked agents is systematically “abducting and disappearing” community members via unlawful arrest tactics, then confining detainees in illegal conditions while denying access to lawyers.
“The court ruled clearly that DHS’s unlawful and abusive practice of denying attorney access to car wash workers, nannies, and other hardworking community members rounded up and detained in cruel and coercive conditions — without beds, meals, or even minimal hygiene — must end immediately,” Mark Rosenbaum, an attorney for Public Counsel, said in a statement. “The question now for our federal government is whether it is prepared to conduct its operations under the rule of law. To date, the answer has been no.”
DHS has denied allegations of unconstitutional, illegal activities during enforcement activity.
“Claims that individuals have been ‘targeted’ by law enforcement because of their skin color are disgusting and categorically FALSE,” according to a department post on social media. “DHS enforcement operations are highly targeted, and officers do their due diligence.”
DHS previously stated, “ICE detention facilities have higher standards than most U.S. prisons that hold actual U.S. citizens. These types of smears are designed to demonize and villainize our brave ICE law enforcement. This garbage has directly led to a nearly 700 percent increase in the assaults on ICE law enforcement officers.”
Federal officials have also called on undocumented immigrants to self-deport via the CBP Home mobile app and visit cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors for information about legal immigration options.
Information on local resources for immigrants is available at oia.lacounty.gov.
