A Los Angeles federal judge signaled Thursday she is leaning towards restricting immigration agents from conducting warrantless arrests without an assessment of the targeted individuals’ likelihood of escape.
At the conclusion of a hearing, U.S. District Judge Maame Frimpong indicated she was poised to grant an ACLU of Southern California motion for a preliminary injunction in the closely watched Vasquez Perdomo vs. Noem case, a lawsuit challenging the legality of the Trump administration’s immigration raids in Southern California.
Since the administration began its raids in Los Angeles last year, federal agents have routinely carried out warrantless arrests without first conducting an escape risk evaluation as required, according to the ACLU.
The plaintiffs allege that a review of 113 arrest records found that nearly 80% either contained no assessment of escape risk or relied on largely standardized language, suggesting a lack of necessary, individualized determination.
It was not immediately known when Frimpong would issue her ruling.
The hearing Thursday was distinct from a related challenge brought by plaintiffs alleging racial profiling and stops without adequate suspicion of a crime, which will be heard by Frimpong at a later date. Earlier this week, the judge rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to end the lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which contends that immigration raids in the region are not just unlawful, but deliberately designed to target Latino communities.
Federal immigration agents are required, by federal law, to either effectuate a warranted arrest, or, without a warrant, find probable cause of deportation and likelihood of escape before a warrant can be obtained.
According to the ACLU, the stops across the Central District of California have continued even after last summer’s street raids ceased.
In response, the DHS insisted federal agents are engaging in protecting American citizens above all other considerations.
“Our agents are focused on protecting the American people — not entertaining performative outrage,” according to a statement from DHS. “Where is the media’s outrage for Angel families who lost a loved one to illegal alien crime?”
“Angel families” refers to the family members of those killed by undocumented individuals present in the United States.
Residents, workers and advocacy groups sued DHS in July 2025, alleging unconstitutional stop and detention practices by agents tied to arbitrary enforcement quotas. The judge initially issued a temporary restraining order limiting certain enforcement actions. However, in August 2025, the Supreme Court granted the government’s request to stay that order while litigation proceeds, allowing the challenged practices to continue.
Last month, plaintiffs attorneys filed documents in Los Angeles federal court allegedly showing text messages and body cam footage revealing agents using racial slurs to identify arrest targets. Immigration advocacy groups argued the evidence showed DHS agents chiefly went after “people who appear Latino and low-income or working-class,” according to a court filing.