Feds Return to Appeals Court to Ask for Stay Ruling Barring Roving Patrols

With a Los Angeles federal judge rejecting a request by government attorneys to pause her ruling barring immigration agents from detaining people without reasonable suspicion beyond their race, ethnicity or occupation, government attorneys have again asked an appeals court to issue a stay of the order, according to court papers obtained Friday.

Government lawyers contend the judge’s order halting so-called “roving patrols” of federal immigration agents in the Los Angeles area is a “straight-jacket” that prevents President Donald Trump “from ensuring that immigration laws are enforced.”

On Thursday evening, U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong denied the government’s request for a stay of the ruling, writing that the government hadn’t shown that it will suffer any harm from the restraining orders she issued last week and because “the federal government did not follow the rules for making this request.”

The judge also denied a request from Southland cities for an expedited hearing on their request to formally participate in the case. A hearing is currently set next month to discuss the proposed intervenors’ request.

Immediately following the judge’s written ruling Thursday evening, the government filed an appeal with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for a second time, asking that the court overturn Frimpong’s order and allow immigration patrols to resume.

The first time the government appealed to the 9th Circuit requesting a stay pending appeal of Frimpong’s temporary restraining order, the judge had not yet ruled on the matter, so the appellate panel on Wednesday denied the motion.

After the federal appeal was lodged with the 9th Circuit, the American Civil Liberties Union immediately filed a response, arguing that a stay would be “inappropriate,” and asking that if the court grants the government’s request, an expedited briefing schedule be put into place.

Frimpong previously set a briefing schedule for the ACLU and other individuals and organizations that brought the lawsuit July 2 to file their arguments on whether the court should issue a preliminary injunction order, which would last far longer than the temporary restraining orders the court issued last week.

The judge set a hearing for Sept. 24 in downtown Los Angeles.

In a statement provided to City News Service, Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary for public affairs at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, said the administration’s position remains unchanged.

“The facts of this case haven’t changed,” she said. “An unelected district judge is undermining the will of the American people. America’s brave men and women of law enforcement are removing murderers, gang members, terrorists, pedophiles, rapists — truly the worst of the worst from Golden State communities.”

In their emergency motion lodged with the appellate court for a stay pending appeal, government attorneys argued the TRO places “coercive restraints on lawful immigration enforcement affecting every immigration stop and detention.”

The ruling levels “systemic challenges to federal immigration enforcement in the Los Angeles area,” according to the appeal.

Frimpong’s ruling came in response to the lawsuit filed in Los Angeles federal court by Public Counsel, the ACLU and attorneys representing Southern California residents, workers and advocacy groups who allege residents 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 authorities have actual proof that individuals are in the country legally.

It further alleged federal agencies, including DHS, 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.

White House border czar Tom Homan also criticized the order.

“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,” Homan told CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday.