A U.S. federal judge has issued a landmark ruling declaring that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) cannot detain people solely based on race, language, work location, or similar broad characteristics — affirming that such actions violate constitutional protections.
U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong of the Central District of California issued two temporary restraining orders (TROs) in the case Perdomo, et al. v. Noem, et al., targeting ICE practices that plaintiffs allege violated their Fourth and Fifteenth Amendment rights. The case stems from a series of ICE raids that began on June 6 in Los Angeles and related detentions at a federal building downtown.
A Clear Constitutional Line
In her ruling, Judge Frimpong declared that federal immigration agents may not conduct detentions based on factors like race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or accented English, being present at a particular location (such as a Home Depot parking lot), or working in certain labor sectors.
“These factors alone or in combination,” she wrote, “do not amount to reasonable suspicion and therefore cannot justify a stop or detention.”
Judge Frimpong emphasized that the case did not present legal gray areas.
“Most of the questions before this court are fairly simple and non-controversial, and both sides in this case agree on the answers,” she wrote.
Among them: Do all individuals—regardless of immigration status—share in the rights guaranteed by the Constitution? Is it unlawful to prevent individuals from accessing legal counsel? To all, she said, the answer is “yes.”
The court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their case and would suffer irreparable harm without relief. The TROs are considered a rare and “extraordinary remedy,” but the judge found all four legal standards for granting them were met.
Protecting Access to Counsel
The first TRO mandates that federal authorities allow all detainees held in the basement of the federal building at 300 North Los Angeles Street to have legal visitation and confidential, unmonitored calls with their attorneys. This comes after attorneys reported being sprayed with an “unknown chemical agent” when trying to meet with detainees — an act that allegedly caused severe irritation and was described as an effort to interfere with legal access.
The second TRO explicitly bars ICE from conducting immigration-related detentions without specific, articulable facts that justify reasonable suspicion. The court clarified that such suspicion must not be based on race, language, work setting, or similar discriminatory factors.
ACLU and Advocates Applaud Decision
Mohammad Tajsar, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU of Southern California, applauded the decision:
“No matter the color of their skin, what language they speak, or where they work, everyone is guaranteed constitutional rights to protect them from unlawful stops.”
He emphasized that the ruling sets a critical precedent amid growing concern over aggressive immigration enforcement tactics that disproportionately affect communities of color and working-class immigrants.
ICE Defenders Push Back
In contrast, former acting ICE director and Trump-era “Border Czar” Tom Homan defended the agency’s tactics. He argued that ICE and border agents are trained to rely on “the totality of the circumstances,” including location, occupation, and appearance, to form reasonable suspicion for brief detentions.
“They don’t need probable cause… It’s not probable cause, it’s reasonable suspicion,” Homan said in response to the ruling. “Agents are trained on what they need.”
Still, the judge found that the government’s interpretation of “reasonable suspicion” was far too broad and unsupported in these cases.
What Comes Next
The case could have far-reaching implications for how federal immigration agents operate across the country — particularly in sanctuary jurisdictions like Los Angeles.
Legal observers say it reaffirms constitutional protections for noncitizens and limits the extent to which ICE can use racial profiling or labor-site surveillance to justify enforcement actions.
For now, the TROs serve as powerful signals that racial profiling and denial of legal access will not be tolerated — and that constitutional rights do not disappear at the point of contact with immigration authorities.
The federal government has not indicated whether it will appeal the ruling.
