The Trump administration has requested a pause from a federal appeals court on a recent ruling that mandates immigration officials in Southern California to cease arrests made without probable cause. This appeal, submitted on Monday, follows a decision by US District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong issued on July 7, 2023, which focused on ensuring that immigration enforcement respects constitutional rights.
Judge Frimpong’s ruling requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to create guidance for law enforcement officers in determining “reasonable suspicion.” This guidance explicitly states that race, ethnicity, language, and accent cannot be used as criteria for suspicion. The ruling specifically applies to the seven-county jurisdiction of the US Central District of California, which includes Los Angeles and adjacent areas.
In their emergency appeal to the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, attorneys from the Justice Department argue that Frimpong’s order represents a significant overreach of judicial power. They contend that the ruling constitutes a “judicial takeover” of immigration policy, traditionally managed by the executive branch. In court documents, DOJ attorneys asserted, “It is untenable for a district judge to single-handedly ‘restructure the operations’ of federal immigration enforcement.”
The administration’s appeal seeks an “administrative stay” to temporarily halt Frimpong’s order while the court considers the possibility of a longer-term suspension. This request, however, faces opposition from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Southern California, which was instrumental in initiating the legal challenge. ACLU attorneys are advocating for the 9th Circuit to deny the administration’s request for a short-term pause, emphasizing the critical nature of upholding constitutional rights against what they describe as unconstitutional practices by the DHS.
The legal argument raised by the ACLU claims that the DHS, which oversees Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), has engaged in unlawful arrests and denied detainees their right to legal counsel. The outcome of this legal battle could have significant implications for immigration enforcement practices not only in California but potentially across the nation.
As this situation develops, the 9th Circuit’s decision on the administration’s request will be closely monitored, as it may set a precedent regarding the balance of power between the judicial and executive branches in matters of immigration policy.
