US federal district judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong for the US District Court for the Central District of California, ruled Friday that race, language, and work location are not grounds for reasonable suspicion for a detentive stop by immigration agents. She issued two temporary restraining orders (TROs) in the case Perdomo, et al. v Noem, et al.
One TRO orders the federal government to cease detaining people for possible immigration law violations without reasonable suspicion. The basis for reasonable suspicion cannot include, alone or in combination, apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a particular location, or type of employment.
A second TRO requires the federal government to allow legal visitation and confidential, unmonitored calls to legal representation for anyone held by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
These orders are preliminary injunctions, meaning “an extraordinary and drastic remedy” that requires the plaintiff to show (1) that the complaint is likely to succeed on its merits; (2) that plaintiff will likely suffer irreparable harm without relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in its favor; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. Judge Frimpong found that all four of these elements were met and issued the temporary restraining orders.
The combined order included the following issues:
Do all individuals – regardless of immigration status – share in the rights guaranteed by the Fourth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution?… Is it illegal to conduct roving patrols which identify people based on race alone, aggressively question them, and then detain them without a warrant, without their consent, and without reasonable suspicion that they are without status? … Is it unlawful to prevent people from having access to lawyers who can help them in immigration court?
Judge Frimpong and both parties agreed that the answers to all of these questions were “yes.”
In response to the ruling, “Border Czar” Tom Homan said:
ICE officers and border patrol, they don’t need probable cause to walk up to somebody, briefly detain them, and question them. They just need this: totality of the circumstances … They just got through the observation, you know, get articulable facts based on the location, the occupation, their physical appearance, their actions … Like a uniformed border patrol officer walks up to them at, for instance, a Home Depot … Agents are trained on what they need … It’s not probable cause, it’s reasonable suspicion. We’re trained on that.
According to Mohammad Tajsar, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, “No matter the color of their skin, what language they speak, or where they work, everyone is guaranteed constitutional rights to protect them from unlawful stops.”
The case focuses on ICE raids in Los Angeles, starting on June 6, and the immigrant detention center in the basement of the federal building at 300 North Los Angeles Street. Attorneys who tried to visit detainees in the federal building were sprayed with “an unknown chemical agent,” which caused coughing and a burning sensation in the eyes, nose, and throat. Government employees made other attempts to interfere with access to counsel. The ICE raids and attempts to interfere with access to counsel caused the parties to sue the government.
