The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday rejected the Trump administration’s request to lift restrictions on federal immigration raids in Los Angeles, upholding a federal injunction that prohibits immigration agents from targeting migrants based on ethnicity, language, or location. The three-judge panel issued a unanimous ruling, emphasizing the need to prevent racial profiling and generalized suspicion in immigration enforcement. The decision maintains the requirement for federal agents to have more specific probable cause before making arrests, rather than relying on broad assumptions about citizenship status.
This ruling comes amid ongoing tensions in the Los Angeles area, where recent immigration raids targeting illegal immigrants working at local businesses have sparked weeks of unrest. The protests, which led to the deployment of about 4,000 National Guard soldiers and 7,000 Marines to the region, have since been largely withdrawn. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass praised the court’s decision as a ‘victory for the rule of law and for the City of Los Angeles,’ calling the ruling a crucial step in protecting communities from immigration enforcement that relies on racial profiling and other illegal tactics.
The legal challenge to the administration’s immigration policies was sparked by allegations of ‘unlawful stop-and-arrest practices’ and ‘illegal conditions of confinement.’ A federal judge had previously issued two temporary restraining orders, including one to halt generalized raids based on the assumption that many Spanish-speaking Hispanics are often found in specific locations. The Department of Justice had filed an emergency appeal to temporarily pause the injunction, claiming it would cause ‘irreparable harm’ and restrict immigration officials’ operations. However, the appeal was denied, affirming the court’s previous decision.
During the proceedings, one of the judges questioned a reported 3,000 daily arrest quota for immigration-related offenses, referencing comments by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, who had said the administration aimed for at least 3,000 arrests daily. The lawyer for the administration insisted that such a quota does not exist, highlighting the contentious nature of the administration’s immigration enforcement policies. The case underscores the ongoing legal and political battles over immigration policies, with the court’s ruling reinforcing protections against racial profiling and ensuring that immigration raids are conducted with more precise and lawful justification.
The decision has significant implications for the administration’s immigration strategy, as it limits the scope of operations that can be conducted in the Los Angeles area. The ruling also reinforces the role of federal courts in reviewing and constraining immigration enforcement practices, ensuring that any actions taken by federal agents are grounded in specific, lawful justifications rather than generalized suspicions. As the legal battles continue, the outcome of this case may serve as a precedent for future immigration enforcement actions and their legal scrutiny.