A federal appeals court delivered a major blow to the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement plans on Friday, ruling to uphold a temporary block on mass immigration-related arrests in Los Angeles, The New York Times reported. The decision, made by a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, allows a restraining order to remain in place as the legal battle over the US immigration raids continues.
Judges Question Constitutionality of Raids
According to the report, the court affirmed that federal immigration agents were likely arresting people based on race, language, and location, without proper cause. In their 61-page decision, the judges wrote that the plaintiffs “are likely to succeed” in proving that arrests were based on how people looked, how they spoke, and where they lived or worked, as reported by NYT.
All three judges, who were appointed by Democratic presidents, emphasised that the arrests appeared to be “part of a pattern of officially sanctioned behaviour” and were “likely to recur” without judicial oversight.
Legal and Political Fallout
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Public Counsel filed the lawsuit on 2 July, accusing the administration of unconstitutional sweeps across Los Angeles. Nearly 3,000 people have been arrested since early June, including American citizens and legal immigrants, the report said.
“This administration’s paramilitary invasion of Los Angeles violated the Constitution and caused irreparable injury across the region,” Mohammad Tajsar, an attorney with the ACLU, told NYT.
Praising the ruling as “a victory for the rule of law and for the city of Los Angeles”, Mayor Karen Bass urged the LA residents to “stand together against this administration’s efforts to break up families who contribute every single day to the life, the culture and the economy of our great city.”
White House Pushback and Court Skepticism
At a July 28 hearing, Justice Department lawyer Yaakov Roth reportedly denied racial profiling and insisted that detentions were based on probable cause. However, Judge Jennifer Sung challenged him, asking, “What is the harm to be told not to do something that you claim you already are not doing?”
Roth also argued that some indicators, like not speaking English, could raise “reasonable suspicion,” a contention that was reportedly met with skepticism by the judges.
The Trump administration has denied the existence of a quota, even though senior adviser Stephen Miller previously cited a daily arrest target of 3,000.
What’s Next?
Judge Maame E. Frimpong of the Federal District Court in Los Angeles has scheduled a September hearing to consider a longer-term injunction. The US government might either appeal the panel’s decision to the full Ninth Circuit or escalate the case to the Supreme Court.
In the meantime, immigration raids in Los Angeles appear to have scaled back, but enforcement continues elsewhere, including at a Home Depot in Encinitas, San Diego County, per NYT.
ALSO READ: Trump Urges Fed Board to Strip Jerome Powell’s Power Over Interest Rate Decisions
