Federal Judge Bars Immigration Stops Based Solely on Apparent Ethnicity or Class Across Seven Southern California Counties; Administration Appeals
Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong issued a preliminary injunction on Oct. 23, 2026, and partially certified a class. The order requires individualized reasonable suspicion and exempts ports of entry and border checkpoints. DHS says its agents follow the law, and the government filed a notice of appeal on Oct. 28.
One word separates two Supreme Court-era standards
A federal judge in Los Angeles has barred immigration agents from stopping people in seven Southern California counties based only on how they look, what language they speak, what job they do or where they stand[1][2]. U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong issued the preliminary injunction on Oct. 23, 2026. The order was largely sealed until Oct. 29[1].
The key word is "solely." The order says an agent "must consider the totality of circumstances and may not rely solely on apparent status as low-income or working-class and Latino"[1]. That word may decide what happens next.
The Supreme Court paused Frimpong's earlier, broader order in September 2025. In that case, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that apparent ethnicity alone cannot justify a stop, but can be one factor among others[5]. Few outlets on either side noted how close the new wording is to his "alone."
What the order does, and where it stops
The case is Vasquez Perdomo v. Mullin. Earlier stages carried the caption Noem, before the DHS secretary was substituted[10]. The order requires federal agents to have individualized reasonable suspicion before detaining someone[2].
It covers Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Ventura counties[1]. Ports of entry, border checkpoints and their "functional equivalents" are exempt[1][2].
Frimpong also partially certified a class. That matters because, without one, an order may protect only the people who sued. Since 2025, the Supreme Court has limited "universal" injunctions that reach beyond the parties. A class lets the court cover a defined group of residents directly[1].
This is a preliminary injunction. It is a temporary order issued before trial. The judge must find the plaintiffs are likely to win and would suffer irreparable harm without it. It is not a final ruling that the government broke the law[2].
The record the judge says outweighs the training
Frimpong wrote that the government's showing that it trains agents to follow the law "cannot defeat the mountain of evidence that, in practice, agents do not follow the law"[2]. She cited body-camera video and depositions of agents and officials. She also cited text messages in which agents used slurs for Latinos, including "tonk" and "wet"[2][3].
The plaintiffs argue this record shows "roving patrols" without specific targets. They say agents swept up people who looked Latino at car washes, bus stops and job sites. They note the government told the courts in 2025 that the operations rested on "intelligence," and say later evidence points the other way[3].
Their case rests on the Fourth Amendment, which protects everyone, including citizens and legal residents. Reasonable suspicion means specific facts that would lead a reasonable officer to suspect a violation. Courts weigh all the factors together, not one at a time[1][5]. The plaintiffs cite Justice Sotomayor's 2025 dissent, which said no one should live in a country where the government "can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job"[5].
The government's case: factors add up
DHS lawyers say officers target people for being in the country illegally, not for skin color, race or ethnicity[3]. DHS also denies racial profiling and says its agents operate within the law[2]. In a reported statement, DHS said: "Our agents are focused on protecting the American people -- not entertaining performative outrage"[1]. Coverage names no spokesperson.
The government's argument is built on numbers and on how suspicion works. It has estimated that about 2 million people in the Los Angeles area lack legal status. That is about 10% of the population, as Kavanaugh's concurrence noted[5]. Some factors line up with illegal presence, such as gathering at known day-labor sites for jobs that often hire off the books[5].
On this view, reasonable suspicion is built by combining factors. A judge-written list of things agents may not "rely solely" on invites a lawsuit over every stop and makes agents hesitate. The government also argues that stops are brief, and that a citizen or lawful resident is quickly let go[5]. It has argued, too, that one district court should not set enforcement policy for a region of millions.
Underneath is an operational stake. The administration wants enforcement running at scale in a top-priority region. It also wants to win again at the Supreme Court, as it did in 2025[1][6].
What happened last time
The history shapes everything. On July 11, 2025, Frimpong issued a temporary restraining order in the same case. The Ninth Circuit refused to pause it. On Sept. 8, 2025, the Supreme Court did, by a 6-3 vote[6][7]. Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson[5].
Conservative critics read that stay as settling the question. The Manhattan Institute's City Journal called the 2025 order "a double standard on race to handicap ICE." In their view it held immigration stops to a stricter standard than courts apply to other policing, and judges have only a narrow role in reviewing how the executive enforces immigration law[6][7].
Supporters of the new order see a judge who learned from the stay. They say she built a much fuller evidence record and worded the limits more narrowly[3]. The 2025 order was broader. The new one forbids relying "solely" on these factors rather than banning them outright[1][5].
Same ruling, different headlines
Outlets framed the order differently. City News Service, the regional wire behind the KESQ story, and Courthouse News stuck mostly to dates, counties, the "solely" wording and DHS's response. Courthouse News said the judge "beefs up" the block, which suggests a broader order. The "solely" wording is arguably narrower than the 2025 one[1][3].
Newsweek and Latin Times led with the "mountain of evidence" quote and the slurs. Newsweek stated "racial profiling" as the subject rather than attributing it to the court[2][4]. A Daily Kos post of the plaintiffs' release called the stops "unlawful" in its own voice, though the ruling is preliminary[8]. India's NewsBytes ran a short summary using the "targeting Latinos" frame[9]. A targeted search found no 2026 coverage from major right-of-center outlets, and none from Al Jazeera, the BBC or Chinese state media.
What happens next
The government filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit on Oct. 28. The injunction stays in effect while the appeal is pending[1][2]. The administration's brief isn't public in the coverage reviewed. The full text of the order and the exact class definition also weren't available for this account.
In 2025, Kavanaugh wrote that the Court would likely take the case if the Ninth Circuit upheld the earlier order[6]. Conservative critics will likely push for another stay if the Ninth Circuit upholds this one[6]. Until then, how DHS adjusts its field practices, and whether any higher court pauses the order, will decide how much changes on the street. The open question is whether "solely" and "alone" turn out to mean the same thing.
Summary
A federal judge in Los Angeles has barred immigration agents from stopping people in seven Southern California counties based only on looking Latino, speaking Spanish, working a certain job or being at a certain place[1][2]. U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong issued the preliminary injunction on Oct. 23, 2026. The order was largely sealed until Oct. 29[1]. It covers Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Ventura counties[1]. It exempts ports of entry, border checkpoints and their 'functional equivalents'[1]. The judge also partially certified a class. That means the ruling protects a group of residents, not just the people who sued[1].
Frimpong wrote that the government's proof of training 'cannot defeat the mountain of evidence that, in practice, agents do not follow the law'[2]. She cited body-camera video, agent depositions and text messages in which agents used slurs for Latinos such as 'tonk' and 'wet'[2][3]. DHS lawyers have said officers target people for being in the country illegally, not for their race or ethnicity[3]. In a reported statement, DHS said: 'Our agents are focused on protecting the American people -- not entertaining performative outrage'[1]. Newsweek reports DHS denies racial profiling and says its agents operate within the law[2]. The government filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit on Oct. 28[1].
The central dispute is whether this order fits what the Supreme Court allowed last year. In September 2025, the Court voted 6-3 to pause Frimpong's earlier, broader order[5][6]. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that apparent ethnicity alone cannot justify a stop. But he said it can be one factor when combined with others[5]. The new order bars relying 'solely' on such factors[1]. Supporters say it follows that line and is backed by a much larger evidence record[3]. The administration's appeal argues the opposite. Its brief is not yet public in the coverage reviewed.
The Event
On Oct. 23, 2026, U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong of the Central District of California granted a preliminary injunction in Vasquez Perdomo v. Mullin (captioned Noem in earlier stages). The order bars federal immigration agents from detaining people without individualized reasonable suspicion. It also bars agents from relying solely on apparent ethnicity, language, location or type of work[1][2][10]. She also partially certified a class of affected residents[1]. The order covers seven counties and exempts ports of entry and border checkpoints[1]. The government filed a notice of appeal on Oct. 28, and the court papers became public on Oct. 29[1].
Undisputed Facts
- Judge Frimpong issued the preliminary injunction on Oct. 23, 2026. It covers the Central District of California's seven counties: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Ventura[1].
- The order says an agent 'must consider the totality of circumstances and may not rely solely on apparent status as low-income or working-class and Latino'[1].
- Stops at ports of entry, checkpoints and other functional equivalents of the border are exempt[2].
- The judge cited body-camera footage, depositions of agents and officials, and text messages in which agents used slurs for Latinos[2][3].
- The government filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit on Oct. 28, 2026. The injunction stays in effect while the appeal is pending[1][2].
- On July 11, 2025, Frimpong issued a temporary restraining order in the same case. The Ninth Circuit refused to pause it, but on Sept. 8, 2025, the Supreme Court paused it by a 6-3 vote[6][7].
- In that 2025 stay, Justice Kavanaugh wrote that apparent ethnicity alone cannot supply reasonable suspicion but can be a relevant factor alongside others. Justice Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson[5].
- DHS lawyers have said officers target people for illegal presence, not skin color, race or ethnicity[3].
The Pressure
Strip away the moralizing and blame. What structural realities persist regardless of which narrative wins?
- What 'reasonable suspicion' requires
- Under the Fourth Amendment, officers may briefly detain someone if specific facts would lead a reasonable officer to suspect a violation. Courts judge this by the 'totality of circumstances': all the factors taken together, not each one alone. That is why the case turns on the word 'solely.' The plaintiffs say agents treated looking Latino plus a low-wage job site as enough. The government says such factors, combined with intelligence and location, legitimately add up. Kavanaugh's 2025 view was that ethnicity alone is not enough but can count as one factor[1][5].
- How a preliminary injunction works
- A preliminary injunction is a temporary order issued before trial. The judge must find that the plaintiffs are likely to win and would suffer irreparable harm without it. It is not a final ruling on whether the government broke the law. Higher courts can pause it, as the Supreme Court did with the 2025 order[2][6].
- Why class certification matters
- Without a certified class, an order may protect only the named plaintiffs. Since 2025, the Supreme Court has limited 'universal' injunctions that protect people beyond the parties in a case. A class lets the court protect a defined group of residents directly. That is why the partial certification decides who in the seven counties is covered[1].
- Supreme Court backstop
- Kavanaugh wrote in 2025 that the Court would likely take the case if the Ninth Circuit upheld the earlier order. So the Supreme Court will likely have the final word again[6].
Material realityImmigration enforcement in the Los Angeles region has been heavy since the summer of 2025[2]. The government estimates about 2 million people in the area lack legal status[5]. The new order requires agents in seven counties to document individualized reasons for a stop. DHS must also issue guidance on reasonable suspicion[2]. Border-area enforcement at ports and checkpoints is untouched[2]. How agents behave on the street now depends on how DHS writes that guidance and on whether the Ninth Circuit or Supreme Court pauses the order[1][6].
Narrative as a weaponThe plaintiffs and Latino-community outlets want readers to see a documented pattern of agents stopping Latinos on sight, proven by the agents' own texts and video. DHS wants readers to see unelected judges blocking lawful enforcement that voters chose. Conservative legal commentators want the 2025 Supreme Court stay to be read as settling the question. Few outlets on either side point out how close the new order's 'solely' wording is to Kavanaugh's 'alone.' That closeness is the most important legal fact for what happens on appeal.
How Each Side Sees It
Each major actor’s view — how it frames things, its underlying incentive, and how it’s materially affected. Tap a side to read it.
Frames it asThe Fourth Amendment protects everyone, including citizens and legal residents. Under it, the government cannot seize a person without individualized suspicion. Plaintiffs say the record shows agents doing 'roving patrols' with no specific targets. They say agents swept up people who looked Latino at car washes, bus stops and job sites, and that agents' own texts used slurs[2][3]. They note the government told the courts in 2025 that the operations were based on 'intelligence.' They say the evidence gathered since then shows otherwise[3]. In their view, Justice Sotomayor's 2025 dissent states the stakes: no one should live in a country where the government 'can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job'[5].
WhyTo get court-enforceable limits that cover the whole region, not just the named plaintiffs. That is why class certification matters[1].
Impact on themClass members get a court order they can enforce if they are stopped. The protection could narrow or end if the Ninth Circuit or Supreme Court reverses it[1][2].
Frames it asOfficers stop people based on signs of illegal presence, not race[3]. DHS denies racial profiling and says its agents operate within the law[2]. Its reported statement: 'Our agents are focused on protecting the American people -- not entertaining performative outrage'[1]. The government has estimated that about 2 million people in the Los Angeles area lack legal status, about 10% of the population, as Kavanaugh's concurrence noted[5]. Some factors match up with illegal presence. One is gathering at known day-labor sites while doing jobs that often hire workers off the books[5]. Reasonable suspicion is built by combining factors. A judge-written list of factors officers may not 'rely solely' on invites lawsuits over every stop and makes agents hesitant to act. In this view, the stops are brief. A citizen or lawful resident who is stopped is quickly let go[5]. The government has also argued in the case that a single district court should not set enforcement policy for a region of millions.
WhyTo keep enforcement operations running at scale in a top-priority region, and to win again at the Supreme Court as it did in 2025[1][6].
Impact on themAgents in seven counties must have individualized reasonable suspicion before detaining someone[2]. How DHS adapts its field practices, and whether the Ninth Circuit or Supreme Court pauses the order, will determine the practical effect; contempt motions and suppression fights are possible if violations are alleged.
Frames it asThe court separates training and written policy from what agents actually do. It found that 'the Government's showing that it trains agents to follow the law cannot defeat the mountain of evidence that, in practice, agents do not follow the law'[2]. The order is written to forbid relying 'solely' on these factors, not to ban them outright. That wording tracks the Supreme Court's 2025 guidance more closely than her earlier order did[1][5].
WhyTo issue an order that can survive appeal after the 2025 stay. That means building a fuller record and wording the limits narrowly[3].
Impact on themHer order will now be reviewed by the Ninth Circuit and possibly again by the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh said in 2025 that the Court would likely take the case if the Ninth Circuit upheld her earlier order[6].
Frames it asCritics such as the Manhattan Institute's City Journal argued that Frimpong's 2025 order applied 'a double standard on race to handicap ICE'[7]. In their view, it set a stricter standard than courts apply to other kinds of policing. They read Kavanaugh's concurrence as setting the rule: judges play a narrow role in reviewing how the executive branch enforces immigration law[6][7].
WhyTo keep courts from limiting how enforcement works on the street, and to protect the reach of the 2025 stay[6][7].
Impact on themIf the Ninth Circuit upholds the new order, they will likely push for another Supreme Court stay[6].
Like this article?
The Bias Ledger average rating 5.3
The same story, as framed by outlets across the spectrum, ordered least to most biased. The bias score (1 = straight, 10 = heavily spun) is an AI assessment of that framing — click an outlet to see its track record. The tell is the word choice or omission that reveals the angle.
| Outlet | Vantage | Bias | How they frame it | The tell |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| City News Service | U.S. center (regional wire) | 3 | LA judge blocks suspicionless, discriminatory stops by DHS | Mostly procedural. It gives the dates, counties, the 'solely' wording and the DHS statement. 'Discriminatory' appears in the headline without attribution. |
| Courthouse News Service | U.S. center (legal trade) | 3 | Judge beefs up block on race-based ICE stops in LA | Explains the new evidence record and includes DHS's denial and Kavanaugh's view. 'Beefs up' suggests a broader order, even though the 'solely' wording is arguably narrower than the 2025 order. |
| Newsweek | U.S. center-left | 5 | Judge blocks ICE racial profiling stops in California: 'Mountain of evidence' | Leads with the judge's most vivid phrase and the slurs. 'Racial profiling' is stated as the subject, not attributed as the court's finding. |
| NewsBytes | Indian (digital aggregator) | 5 | Judge Frimpong bars ICE stops targeting Latinos in Southern California | Short summary. 'Targeting Latinos' takes on the plaintiffs' framing, with little context. |
| Latin Times | U.S. Latino-audience, left-leaning | 6 | Judge cites a 'mountain of evidence' of racial profiling as she blocks immigration stops based on ethnicity or socioeconomic status | Frames the story around harm to the community. The government's argument gets little space. |
| City Journal | U.S. right (Manhattan Institute); 2025 piece on the earlier order | 7 | Pedro Vasquez Perdomo v. Kristi Noem Ruling: a Double Standard on Race to Handicap ICE | 'Handicap ICE' treats the dispute as courts getting in the way of enforcement. Profiling evidence is not the frame. |
| Daily Kos | U.S. left (community post of the plaintiffs' release) | 8 | Federal Court Blocks Unlawful Suspicionless, Racially Discriminatory Immigration Stops in Southern California | Calls the stops 'unlawful' in its own voice. The ruling is preliminary, not a final finding of illegality. |
References
- LA judge blocks suspicionless, discriminatory stops by DHS — KESQ (City News Service) · Regional commercial wire; center
- Judge blocks ICE racial profiling stops in California: 'Mountain of evidence' — Newsweek · Commercial; center-left news framing
- Judge beefs up block on race-based ICE stops in LA — Courthouse News Service · Legal trade wire; center
- Judge cites a 'mountain of evidence' of racial profiling as she blocks immigration stops based on ethnicity or socioeconomic status — Latin Times · Latino-audience commercial outlet; left-leaning framing
- Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, No. 25A169 (stay order, Kavanaugh concurrence, Sotomayor dissent) — Supreme Court of the United States · Primary source (court record)
- Supreme Court allows federal officers to more freely make immigration stops in LA — SCOTUSblog · Legal news site; generally center
- Pedro Vasquez Perdomo v. Kristi Noem Ruling: a Double Standard on Race to Handicap ICE — City Journal · Manhattan Institute, conservative think tank magazine (2025 piece)
- Federal Court Blocks Unlawful Suspicionless, Racially Discriminatory Immigration Stops in Southern California — Daily Kos · Progressive community blog; reposted plaintiff-side release
- Judge Frimpong bars ICE stops targeting Latinos in Southern California — NewsBytes · Indian commercial digital aggregator
- Pedro Vasquez Perdomo v. Kristi Noem 2:25-cv-05605 (C.D. Cal.) — Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse · University of Michigan Law-affiliated case database; documents filings