A Los Angeles federal judge is considering a plaintiffs’ request to restrict alleged race-based suspicionless stops of supposed immigrants by federal agents across the district, according to court documents obtained Friday.
U.S. District Judge Maame Frimpong heard arguments Thursday and ordered supplemental briefing from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, defendants in the closely watched Vasquez Perdomo vs. Mullin case, before making her decision.
Federal agents have allegedly been carrying out an ongoing campaign of warrantless and discriminatory immigration enforcement stops in the region since the summer of 2025, according to the ACLU of Southern California, which is representing plaintiffs.
The request for a preliminary injunction stems from the case in which residents, Latino workers and immigration advocacy groups sued the DHS, alleging unconstitutional stop and detention practices by agents using racial profiling and suspicionless stops.
According to the ACLU, the Trump administration is targeting “people who appear Latino and low-income or working-class.”
In a video discussed in the filing, a DHS agent is captured saying to another: “Yeah, just plug us in wherever you see some tonks,” while other agents guessed whether people were “wet” simply based on appearance.
The complaint says “tonks” is a derogatory and violent term understood to refer to the sound of a flashlight striking a migrant’s head. “Wet” is short for “wetback” and is a racist slur historically directed at Mexican and other Latino immigrants crossing the Rio Grande.
In response to the suit, the DHS insists federal agents in the field are operating within the law to protect American citizens.
“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.
At the conclusion of the hearing Thursday in Los Angeles federal court, Frimpong advised DHS attorneys that they could submit a limited supplemental brief by Wednesday and gave the plaintiffs until the next day to respond. It was not known how soon afterward the judge would issue her ruling.
The July motion for restrictions on immigration stops includes body camera footage and depositions of federal agents as part of evidence ordered by Frimpong after the U.S. Supreme Court stayed an earlier temporary restraining order last year which allowed the challenged practices to continue unabated.
Plaintiffs argue the Constitution prohibits law enforcement from using race as a substitute for individualized suspicion. The motion alleges the stops violate both the Fourth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection.
“Our communities have been denouncing foul play from day one,” Angelica Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, a plaintiff in the case, said in a recent statement. “The evidence doesn’t lie: These arrests were never about safety, they were about skin color. We repudiate this racial profiling in the strongest terms — our communities deserve better.”
“A year ago, farm workers across California were terrorized by brutal and unconstitutional raids based on racial and class profiling,” said Teresa Romero, president of the United Farm Workers, also a plaintiff. “Today, the fear left behind by those raids continues. Farm workers go to work afraid they may not come home, even as they put food on all of our tables. America owes the workers who feed it much better. The workers who feed this country deserve so much better.”