US court blocks ICE from using racial profiling in LA immigration sweeps

A federal appeals court has upheld a temporary ban preventing immigration authorities in the Los Angeles area from using racial profiling tactics during enforcement actions.

In a unanimous ruling on Friday, a three-judge panel from the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected a request by the federal government to suspend a restraining order issued earlier this month. That order had blocked US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from questioning or detaining people based solely on factors like race, ethnicity, or the language they speak.

The panel’s decision means immigration agents in Southern California must continue to refrain from practices such as stopping individuals in parking lots outside hardware stores, places where day laborers often gather, unless they have specific and reasonable suspicion that someone is in the country unlawfully.

The original temporary restraining order was issued on July 11 by US District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong in Los Angeles. Appointed by former US President Joe Biden, Judge Frimpong prohibited ICE agents from targeting individuals based on characteristics such as race, speaking Spanish or accented English, job type, or location. Her ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by local residents, workers, and advocacy organizations who argued that the federal government was violating constitutional rights in its pursuit of undocumented immigrants.

The Trump administration did not appeal a portion of the ruling that requires ICE to provide detainees with access to legal counsel.

“Today’s ruling sends a powerful message: the government cannot excuse illegal conduct by relying on racial profiling as a tool of immigration enforcement,” said Mark Rosenbaum, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs.

The panel of judges, composed of one Biden appointee and two appointed by Bill Clinton, appeared skeptical of government attorneys’ claims during a July 28 hearing. The administration had argued that profiling, when combined with recent intelligence and agent experience, was legally justified.

At the heart of the legal dispute is a shift in how immigration sweeps are being carried out. Rather than focusing on individuals with active removal orders, plaintiffs allege that agents have resorted to broad and indiscriminate tactics that violate protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

US President Donald Trump has previously defended such methods, framing them as a necessary part of his broader pledge to remove millions of undocumented immigrants, a core promise of his presidency.

The plaintiffs are now seeking a more permanent preliminary injunction, which would remain in place while the case proceeds through the courts. A decision on that request could trigger another round of appeals, potentially landing the case before the US Supreme Court.

The lawsuit is titled Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem, case number 25-4312, in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco.