A week after a significant ruling from a federal judge in California, the Trump administration is seeking a stay from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to contest the decision. The case stems from a detailed 52-page ruling issued by Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 11, concerning alleged unlawful immigration enforcement practices by federal agents.
As of now, the Ninth Circuit has yet to respond to the administration’s request for a stay. Legal representatives for the president may bring their case to the court once again on July 21, hoping to overturn Judge Frimpong’s ruling. This legal maneuvering comes amid distractions surrounding current events, including the situation involving financier Jeffrey Epstein, which has reportedly engaged some of Trump’s staunchest supporters.
In her ruling, Judge Frimpong indicated that the actions of federal immigration officials often violated the U.S. Constitution. She highlighted extensive evidence showing that agents frequently arrested individuals based solely on race, language accents, or employment types, infringing upon the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The judge mandated that the administration and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) cease indiscriminate immigration sweeps across Southern California. These operations, according to Frimpong, lacked reasonable suspicion that the targets were in the country illegally, and detainees were often denied the right to legal counsel when seeking to contact their attorneys.
To clarify her directives, Judge Frimpong issued two temporary restraining orders (TROs). The first prohibits immigration officials from stopping individuals without probable cause, specifically precluding reliance on factors such as race, language, geographical location, or type of employment. The second order mandates that DHS provide access to legal counsel at a federal facility in downtown Los Angeles, where many of those arrested have been taken.
On July 6, residents and advocacy groups in Southern California initiated a notable lawsuit against the federal government, accusing it of unlawfully detaining community members using aggressive patrol methods and confining them under substandard conditions while denying access to legal representation. The City and County of Los Angeles, along with several other municipalities, have joined this lawsuit, urging the court to uphold Frimpong’s TRO that restricts “suspicionless” stops.
California’s government has also voiced its support through an amicus brief that aligns with Judge Frimpong’s ruling. Mohammad Tajsar, a senior attorney with the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, expressed hope that the court’s decision would lead to accountability for what he described as a widespread violation of citizens’ rights by federal agents.
In related developments, Los Angeles County Supervisor Janice Hahn has expressed intentions to introduce a motion aimed at establishing a county ordinance to prevent law enforcement from concealing their identities while performing their duties in unincorporated areas. This action follows reports of various law enforcement personnel wearing disguises during ICE raids that began in early June 2025.
Hahn articulated the necessity for transparency in law enforcement, stressing that officers should not hide their identities while engaging with the public. Her motion is set to be presented on July 29, 2025, highlighting ongoing concerns about the conduct of federal immigration enforcement within the county.
This article was automatically written by Open AI, and the people, facts, circumstances, and story may be inaccurate. Any article can be requested for removal, retraction, or correction by writing an email to contact@publiclawlibrary.org.