A federal appeals court Friday evening denied the Trump administration’s request for a stay of a temporary restraining order that stopped widespread immigration enforcement throughout Southern California, setting the stage for a possible Supreme Court appeal.
A key issue the judges considered was whether patrols by federal agents targeting people based on skin color and ethnicity violate the Constitution’s “reasonable suspicion” requirement.
“If, as Defendants suggest, they are not conducting stops that lack reasonable suspicion, they can hardly claim to be irreparably harmed by an injunction aimed at preventing a subset of stops not supported by reasonable suspicion,” the three-judge panel wrote. “Thus, we conclude that 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.“
Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judges Ronald M. Gould, Marsha S. Berzon and Jennifer Sung also found “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 appellate judges were appointed by Democratic presidents. The administration now will likely file an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court, where six of the nine justices were appointed by Republican presidents.
“This is a victory for Los Angeles, and this is a victory because the people of Los Angeles stood together,” Mayor Karen Bass said at a Friday night news conference. “I think the administration might have believed that this was going to divide our city, that our city was going to go at each other in division, but we did not. We stood strong, and I am very happy to say that us standing strong … gave the court the resolve to uphold this decision.”
LA County District 2 Supervisor Hilda Solis welcomed the court decision in a statement Saturday, calling it “a critical victory for the rule of law and for communities across Los Angeles County” and demanding an end to “indiscriminate and warrantless immigration raids.”
The appeals court held a 90-minute hearing Monday in San Francisco. Attorneys for the government and plaintiffs presented arguments on the Trump administration’s bid for a stay to U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong’s ruling that roving patrols during “Operation At Large” were illegally conducted without reasonable suspicion throughout the LA area.
U.S. Department of Justice Attorney Jacob Roth insisted that the immigration stops and raids were legal and carefully targeted with probable cause to take people into custody.
“The officers are instructed to find reasonable suspicion before an arrest,” Roth told the appeals court judges, adding that Frimpong’s temporary restraining order “is fundamentally flawed on multiple levels.”
Frimpong has scheduled a hearing for Sept. 24.
“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. The Trump Administration looks forward to continuing to implement its immigration policies lawfully.”
The administration’s appeal was the latest action stemming from a July 2 lawsuit by Southern California residents, workers, advocacy organizations and a union alleging that aggressive immigration enforcement activity by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security involves “abducting and disappearing” community members via unlawful arrest tactics. Plaintiffs also claim federal agents are confining detainees in illegal, often filthy conditions and denying them access to legal counsel.
The proposed class-action suit was filed in Los Angeles federal court by five individual workers as well the Los Angeles Worker Center Network, Coalition for Humane Human Rights and United Farmworkers of America. The plaintiffs allege the Department of Homeland Security has unconstitutionally arrested and detained people in order to meet arbitrary arrest quotas set by the Trump administration.
Solis said the aggressive tactics by federal agents were “driven by an artificial quota and political motives rather than public safety (and) have caused lasting harm. Families have been torn apart. Children are afraid to go to school. Older adults are hesitant to seek medical care. Small businesses that form the backbone of our neighborhoods are struggling.
“These are not isolated incidents. They are the direct result of policies carried out by a president who believes he is above the law,” Solis said, adding that the appeals court ruling “marks a meaningful step toward protecting Angelenos’ dignity and rights.”
Since Operation At Large began in the LA area on June 6, the president and administration officials have vowed to continue carrying out Trump’s campaign pledge to conduct “the largest deportation program in American history.”
In a statement Saturday, Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said, “Unelected judges are undermining the will of the American 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,” McLaughlin said.
She added that “70% of ICE arrests are of criminal illegal aliens who have been convicted or have pending charges. President Trump and (Homeland Security Department) Secretary Noem are putting the American people first by removing illegal aliens who pose a threat to our communities. Law and order will prevail.”
The appeals panel’s ruling is available on the court’s website.
Updated Aug. 4, 2025, 8:34 a.m.
