The Trump administration has filed court papers seeking a stay of a Los Angeles federal judge’s orders barring federal agents from detain people without reasonable suspicion beyond their race, ethnicity or occupation.
Attorneys for the federal government on Sunday filed a formal notice of appeal, announcing its intention to challenge the Friday ruling by U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong. The government on Monday asked Frimpong to put the ruling on hold pending a review by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Federal attorneys also submitted paperwork to the 9th Circuit, also asking for a stay of the ruling.
In its emergency motion lodged with the appellate court for a stay pending appeal, government attorneys argued that the ruling places “coercive restraints on lawful immigration enforcement affecting every immigration stop and detention.”
The lawyers contend that the judge’s injunction is a “straight-jacket” inflicting “irreparable harm” by preventing President Donald Trump “from ensuring that immigration laws are enforced.” The ruling levels “systemic challenges to federal immigration enforcement in the Los Angeles area,” according to the appeal.
Frimpong on Tuesday morning ordered plaintiffs in the case to file papers by the end of the day regarding the government’s request for a stay. It was unclear when the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals might consider the matter.
“No federal judge has the authority to dictate immigration policy — that authority rests with Congress and the president,” White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson told City News Service in an email Sunday.
“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,” Jackson added.
Requesting that immigration stops be allowed to immediately resume with no change, the Trump administration argues that the result of Frimpong’s temporary order “is a sweeping, district-wide injunction that threatens to hobble lawful immigration enforcement by hanging a Damocles sword of contempt over every immigration stop.”
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 wrote in her ruling that the two restraining orders should not be an imposition on immigration authorities’ work, writing that “requiring law enforcement to comply with the Constitution does not prevent law enforcement from enforcing the law.”
“Complying with the law does not impose harm,” the judge wrote.
Federal officials have repeatedly denied violating the law during immigration sweeps.
White House border czar Tom Homan criticized the order Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
“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.
“… Physical description can’t be the sole factor to give you reasonable suspicion,” he added. ” … Appearance can be just one. For instance, if someone has an MS-13 tattoo on their face, that may be one factor to add to other factors to raise reasonable suspicion. … But I can tell you this, that every ICE officer goes through Fourth Amendment training every six months, and reminded what their authorities are for arrest, detention, and questioning. So, the officers are very well-trained.”
Appearing on the same program, Sen. Alex Padilla, D-California, disputed Homan’s claims.
“It is appearance. It’s accents. It’s occupation, again, construction workers, farmworkers, you name it. The evidence is out there,” Padilla said.
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.”
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security issued a defiant response on its social media pages, writing, “A district judge is undermining the will of the American people. America’s brave men and women are removing murderers, MS-13 gang members, pedophiles, rapists — truly the worst of the worst from Golden State communities. LAW AND ORDER WILL PREVAIL!”
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.
The two main plaintiffs in the case said they were arrested by armed, masked agents merely for sitting at a bus stop.
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, but on Tuesday, the federal government filed papers opposing a Friday hearing, asking instead that the motion be heard next month.
“I believe these events are unprecedented in American history,” plaintiffs’ attorney Mark Rosenbaum of the Public Counsel law firm told the court, referring to the events of the past month when immigration raids across the region have prompted demonstrations and panic in Latino communities.
In a statement following Friday’s ruling, Rosenbaum called the decision “historic.”
“The court ruled clearly that DHS’s unlawful and abusive practice of denying attorney access to car wash workers, nannies, and other hardworking community members rounded up and detained in cruel and coercive conditions — without beds, meals, or even minimal hygiene — must end immediately,” he said. “The question now for our federal government is whether it is prepared to conduct its operations under the rule of law. To date, the answer has been no.”
During a court hearing Thursday, Sean Skedzielewski, a government attorney, denied allegations that agents were conducting illegal detentions of immigrants, insisting that DHS enforcement activities are based on proper evidence and the “totality of the circumstances.”
In its appeal, the Trump administration accuses the judge of taking “a first step to placing federal immigration enforcement under judicial monitorship,” a move which is “indefensible on every level.”