Trump Administration Appeals Immigration Raids Ban
The Trump administration on Monday requested a federal appeals court to allow immigration officials to resume free raids in Southern California, seeking to overturn a judge’s order in Los Angeles that prohibited “roving patrols” across seven counties.
According to a motion filed by a Justice Department lawyer, the order poses “irreparable harm” by hindering the enforcement of the President’s Article II authorities. The lawyer argued that the negative impacts of the injunction grow more severe the longer it remains in effect.
Following intense operations by heavily armed federal agents, these raids have seemingly paused after U.S. District Judge Mame Eusimensa Flimun issued a temporary restraining order last Friday night affecting Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo counties.
A coalition of civil rights organizations and private attorneys has sued the federal government, contesting the cases of three immigrants and two U.S. citizens, amidst a backdrop of chaotic arrests that have instilled fear and ignited widespread protests since June 6.
“The swift appeal by the federal government tells you everything about its urgency to comply with constitutional mandates,” remarked Mohammad Tarjah, an ACLU attorney in Southern California. He added, “We’re dedicated to defending the temporary restraining order and ensuring the Southern California community remains safe from federal aggression.”
Judge Flimon ruled that the Trump administration’s tactics were not effective, emphasizing that using race, ethnicity, language, or other identifiers as justifications for immigration enforcement violates the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. She also pointed out that hindering detainees from consulting with legal counsel breaches their Fifth Amendment rights to due process.
“This means the issues presented to the court are quite serious,” she noted.
During a press conference on Saturday, Homeland Security Secretary Christie Noem mistakenly referred to Judge Flimon as a man, commenting on the judge’s order: “We have every right to operate within the law. We’re going to challenge this and ultimately prevail.”
The court not only blockaded roving patrols but also mandated that the Department of Homeland Security permit access to certain detention facilities in downtown Los Angeles for legal advisers and aid organizations.
“The district court’s injunction is a significant win for immigrants, yet the flurry of court orders and appeals creates a sense of uncertainty,” stated Ming Hsu Chen, a law professor at UC San Francisco. “This kind of anxiety can weaken communities and undermine democratic principles, especially in areas like LA.”
The Trump administration has yet to formally contest the Fifth Amendment aspect of the ruling. Instead, they’re focusing on challenging the Fourth Amendment and seeking a stay to restore the previous state of immigration enforcement in Southern California, although the case is before a High Court judge.
“It’s unacceptable for district judges to dictate the structure of federal immigration enforcement,” the appeal stated. “This judicial overreach is unwarranted.”
However, some experts suggest this argument may not hold up.
“Their claims of impending disaster are exaggerated—they’re making a rather extreme case, which may not bolster their position in the 9th Circuit,” commented University of Richmond Professor Carl Tobias.
This appeal adds another layer to an ongoing and intense legal struggle regarding Trump’s commitment to mass deportations and the strategies employed to carry them out.
Following the deployment of troops in June to address anti-ICE protests, California successfully obtained a temporary restraining order that curtailed the president’s command.
The appeals panel quickly reversed this in mid-June, maintaining a significant military presence under Trump’s orders.
Nonetheless, Trump’s appointee, Honolulu J. Bennett, who issued the June 19 ruling, challenged the government’s assertion that the President’s actions were devoid of reference.
“Some of what they are asserting is quite unconventional; it’s not an argument we typically see in courts,” observed Chen. “Instead of framing this as a management guideline, they’re asserting that state efforts to limit executive power represent a judicial overreach.”
Recently, another Ninth Circuit judge sought to revisit that June decision, requesting the court conduct further hearings with a broader “en banc” panel.
“In many cases, judges tend to trust their colleagues and may defer to the initial 3-judge panel that heard the appeal,” Tobias explained.
Meanwhile, California is building its case that the Marines and National Guard, involved in immigration enforcement, may be contravening the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits military enforcement of civil law.
Compared to these overarching issues, the legal complexities of LA’s appeal are relatively straightforward, according to experts.
“What differentiates this argument is its strong factual basis,” noted Irwin Kemelinski, dean of the Berkeley School of Law in California. “Overturning factual determinations made by a trial court is exceedingly difficult for an appellate court.”
