A federal judge’s ruling on Friday raised hope of immigrants and advocates of a pause on immigration arrests in Southern California jolted by a massive immigration crackdown.
The ruling puts a halt on “indiscriminate” apprehensions, based on a person’s race and requires the government provide due process for those detained.
RELATED: Immigration arrests in San Francisco region up 77% since Trump took office
But in a massive federal immigration crackdown that has now pushed to more than a month, Monday was a day for watching for whether the federal government would appeal, and for seeing how the ruling was playing out in a region where many immigrant-rich communities have been drive into the shadows for fear of arrest.
On both fronts, the ruling appeared to be taking effect. The federal government appealed, asking for an immediate stay on the order.
That crackdown as of last week had resulted in the apprehension of close to 3,000 people, according to reports — from Home Deport parking lots to car washes to farms to local neighborhood streets.
Ultimately, as blistering as District Court Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong’s ruling is, it still depends on federal authorities’ adherence to a court order. And it still prompts questions: Will immigration raids come to an end, for now? And if so, where? Will the government appeal? Are all immigration sweeps unconstitutional?
Here are some things to know about what some advocates said was a historic ruling.
What was the ruling, and why does it matter?
Frimpong’s ruling was large in scope, but also focused on two particular questions:
Is it illegal for immigration agents to conduct “roving controls” — based only on a person’s race, then question them and arrest them without a warrant or reasonable suspicion?
Can authorities cut off detainees’ access to lawyers who can help them in immigration court?Friday’s 52-page ruling by Frimpong bars immigration agencies “from conducting detentive stops in this district 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/ethnicity, speaking with an accent or being at locations such as bus stops, day laborer sites, car washes or agricultural sites as a basis for detaining people.
In a separate ruling, Frimpong ordered immigration agencies to ensure detainees are provided with access to attorneys or legal representatives seven days a week, and access to confidential telephone calls with attorneys at no charge to the detainees — and that those calls “shall not be screened, recorded or otherwise monitored.”
Frimpong wrote in her decision that federal authorities have been “conducting roving patrols without reasonable suspicion” during their immigration-enforcement crackdown in the Los Angeles area.
She also suggested in her ruling that the two restraining orders she issued should not pose any imposition on immigration authorities from doing their jobs, writing that “requiring law enforcement to comply with the Constitution does not prevent law enforcement from enforcing the law.”
She cited case law showing that “the Fifth Amendment guarantees due process in deportation proceedings …. As a result, an alien who faces deportation is entitled to a full and fair hearing of his claims and reasonable opportunity to present evidence on his behalf,” she said, quoting Ninth Circuit appellate cases.
Is this order just for L.A., or does it cover other areas?
The ruling applies to several Southern California counties in the U.S. District Court’s Central District jurisdiction.
That’s Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties, Orange County and Riverside and San Bernardino counties.
Will the government appeal?
Yes. The government filed an emergency motion on Monday to stay the order, pending it’s appeal.
“The district court has entered a sweeping, district-wide injunction placing coercive restraints on lawful immigration enforcement affecting every immigration stop and detention,” the motion states, adding that that the injunction on stops “is inflicting irreparable harm by preventing the Executive from ensuring that immigration laws are enforced … .”
Over the weekend, border czar Tom Homan, on CNN’s “State of the Union” program, was already hinting at the gist of the pushback against the ruling.
He seemed to agree that physical description can’t be the sole factor for reasonable suspicion. But it can be one factor, he said, among others, that could raise reasonable suspicion.
“I can tell you this, that every ICE officer goes through Fourth Amendment training every six months, and is reminded what their authorities are for arrest, detention, and questioning. So, the officers are very well-trained,” he said.
Consider, too, official statements out over the weekend, which pushed back more on the judge’s ruling on probable cause.
“Look, we’re going to litigate that order, because I think the order’s wrong. I mean, she’s (Frimpong) 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.
“So, unless she’s in the officer’s mind, I don’t know if she would make that decision that, well, they’re not using reasonable suspicion. How does she know that? I mean, every officer has to bring articulable facts to raise reasonable suspicion, and then they can briefly detain,” Homan said.
There was no immediate ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on the government’s request for the stay. Attorneys for the federal government on Sunday filed a formal notice of appeal, announcing its intention to challenge the Friday ruling.
A stay would put Frimpong’s ruling on hold pending the appeal.
Does this end all ICE arrests?
No. In her ruling, Frimpong noted that the federal government can “conduct immigration enforcement — even large-scale immigration enforcement.”
But there was a big caveat.
She couched that in terms of civil liberties, that all people — regardless of immigration status — are guaranteed protections under the Constitution. Namely, its protection against illegal search and seizures and the requirement of probable cause before an arrest.
She also stressed that people are protected from such arrests under the Fifth Amendment’s “due process” clause.
Jean Reisz, co-director of the USC Immigration Clinic and clinical associate professor of law, noted that Judge Frimpong’s order does not prevent the federal government from making immigration arrests in areas within the Central District’s jurisdiction.
“It simply orders the Federal government not to violate the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution and detain an individual without reasonable suspicion that the person they stop is violating the law. That includes not detaining people based on their apparent race or ethnicity, or related solely to their race or ethnicity such as speaking Spanish, or speaking English with an accent, their presence at a particular location and the type of work they do.”
Reisz noted that the ruling is a temporary order while the court case progresses, and both sides provide more evidence.
So will Home Depots and car washes remain “hot spots” for ICE sweeps?
In theory, no. But that also depends on if the government adheres to the ruling.
The federal government’s immediate response suggested that the judge was overstepping her authority.
“No federal judge has the authority to dictate immigration policy – that authority rests with Congress and the President. 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,” said White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson, in a statement on Monday.
After Friday’s ruling, 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. “Our federal agents will continue to enforce the law and abide by the U.S. Constitution.”
How did this ruling come about in the first place?
Pedro Vasquez Perdomo, Carlos Alexander Osorto and Isaac Villegas Molina are all Pasadena residents who were sitting at a bus stop across from a Winchell’s Donuts on the morning of June 18, waiting to be picked up to go to a job.
That’s when four cars suddenly descended on the spot, and about six masked federal agents wearing masks and armed, apprehended them, without immediately identifying themselves, according to the lawsuit filed by Public Counsel and the American Civil Liberties Union and echoed in the Friday ruling.
No warrant was shown, the lawsuit alleges. They were ultimately booked and taken to a detention facility in downtown Los Angeles, where attorneys say they were detained in in unsanitary conditions.
By then, the early-morning immigration raid was part of a massive federal operation blanketing Southern California and the nation, prompting fear across an array of neighborhoods. It prompted Rep. Judy Chu, D-Pasadena, and Pasadena Mayor Victor Gordo to travel to a detention area that day in the basement of the downtown Los Angeles Edward R. Roybal Federal Building.
They demanded to see six people who they said were detained in the city and to make sure their due process rights were ensured. After repeated attempts, the officials were turned away without connecting with those detained.
Video taken from inside Winchell’s Donut House near Orange Grove Boulevard and Los Robles Avenue showed ICE agents detaining at least two men sitting at the bus stop outside. The men appeared to be handcuffed and surrounded by armed agents wearing face coverings. The incident occurred at around 6 a.m., according to witnesses
The lawsuit was filed July 2 in Los Angeles federal court by Public Counsel, the American Civil Liberties Union and attorneys representing Southern California residents, workers and advocacy groups on behalf of people who allege they were unlawfully stopped or detained by federal agents targeting locations where immigrant workers are traditionally hired. It accused immigration officials of carrying out “roving patrols” and detaining people without warrants and regardless of whether they have actual proof they are in the country legally.
It further alleged that federal agencies, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, engaged in unconstitutional and unlawful immigration enforcement raids by targeting Angelenos based on their perceived race and ethnicity and denying detainees constitutionally mandated due process.
The lawsuit accused the DHS of operating a program of “abducting and disappearing” community members using unlawful arrest tactics, then confining detainees in illegal conditions while denying access to attorneys
How are other cities involved?
It’s not new news that the immigration raids are happening throughout Southern California.
But what may be lesser known is those watching this case.
Attorneys for Los Angeles 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.
City News Service contributed to this report.