June 8, 2025; Los Angeles, CA, USA; Protesters gather near Union Station and the Federal Courthouse in Los Angeles on June 8, 2025. Clashes between law enforcement and protesters intensified on Sunday as California National Guard troops arrived in Los Angeles to quell demonstrations against President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown, a move that the state's Democratic governor has called unlawful. Mangatory Credit: Trevor Hughes-USA TODAY Network via Imagn
Sacramento, California – A federal appeals court on Friday denied the Trump administration’s attempt to pause a restraining order that bars federal immigration authorities from conducting certain types of enforcement operations in Southern California. The decision by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals keeps in place a temporary restraining order (TRO) that limits warrantless stops and arrests across seven counties, including Los Angeles, Riverside, and Orange.
The underlying case challenges the Department of Homeland Security’s alleged pattern of targeting individuals for immigration enforcement based on race, language, location, or type of employment—criteria the plaintiffs argue violate the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The court’s refusal to grant a stay ensures that federal agents remain barred from conducting enforcement actions that rely on such factors while the lawsuit proceeds.
The TRO, first issued by U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong in July, came in response to a wave of highly visible immigration raids in Southern California. Many of these operations involved masked agents conducting street-level arrests without warrants or legal justification. The court found that practices like detaining individuals based on speaking Spanish, working in agriculture, or frequenting areas associated with immigrant labor did not constitute reasonable suspicion under the law.
Plaintiffs in the case include a coalition of civil rights groups, legal advocacy organizations, and individuals who were allegedly detained without cause. They argue that the raids caused widespread fear and disruption, particularly in Latino and immigrant communities. Some of those detained were U.S. citizens or lawful residents, raising broader questions about the constitutional limits of federal enforcement powers.
The court’s opinion emphasized that the government had failed to demonstrate it would suffer irreparable harm if the TRO remained in place. It also criticized the Department of Justice’s reading of the original restraining order and rejected claims that enforcement efforts were being unduly restricted. The panel cited evidence that agents had conducted multiple stops across the region in a matter of weeks—often in the same locations—suggesting the practice was widespread and likely to continue.
Although the case remains in its early stages, the decision marks a significant setback for the administration’s immigration strategy. A hearing on a potential preliminary injunction is scheduled for September. For now, the aggressive tactics that drew national attention in early June have largely ceased in the affected counties, and the legal framework governing immigration enforcement in California remains under judicial scrutiny.
