The Trump administration has requested a federal appeals court to pause a recent ruling that mandates immigration officials in southern California to cease arrests without probable cause. This appeal arises from a decision made by US District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong on March 15, 2024, which requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to establish guidelines for determining “reasonable suspicion” that do not rely on race, ethnicity, language, or the nature of a person’s work.
The ruling specifically affects the seven-county jurisdiction of the US Central District of California, which encompasses Los Angeles and its surrounding areas. Judge Frimpong’s order demands that immigration enforcement must adhere to stricter criteria, potentially reshaping how arrests are conducted in the region.
In its emergency appeal submitted to the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, the Department of Justice (DOJ) criticized Judge Frimpong for what it perceives as an overreach of judicial power. DOJ attorneys argued that the ruling represents a “judicial takeover” of immigration enforcement policies, traditionally managed by the executive branch. They contend it is inappropriate for a district judge to independently “restructure the operations” of federal immigration enforcement.
The administration is also seeking an “administrative stay” from the appeals court. This would temporarily suspend Judge Frimpong’s order while the court deliberates on the matter. According to DOJ filings, there is concern that the ruling may disrupt ongoing immigration enforcement efforts.
On the other side, attorneys from the ACLU of Southern California, who played a pivotal role in bringing the legal challenge, are urging the 9th Circuit to deny the administration’s request for a temporary pause. They assert that the DHS has engaged in unconstitutional practices and has obstructed detainees’ access to legal representation.
This legal battle highlights ongoing tensions surrounding immigration enforcement in the United States, particularly as it pertains to civil rights and law enforcement practices. The outcome of this appeal could significantly impact how immigration laws are enforced in California, a state with a large immigrant population.
As the case progresses, the implications of Judge Frimpong’s ruling and the administration’s response will continue to unfold, drawing attention from both proponents and opponents of immigration reform.
