U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong barred federal immigration officers from making detentions based on racial stereotyping in a preliminary injunction in Vasquez Perdomo v. Mullin. The order blocks the challenged suspicionless stops across much of Southern California, with a limited exception for border settings.
Frimpong issued the order on October 23, 2026. Court papers became public on October 29, after the order had remained largely sealed. The court also partly certified a class of people affected by the alleged practices.
The injunction is in effect. The administration filed an appeal on October 28.
- The order excludes stops at ports of entry, checkpoints and other functional border equivalents.
- A previous order restricting stops based on several factors was stayed by the Supreme Court.
- Twenty-two Los Angeles-area governments backed a request for an injunction in June 2026.
The order bars racial-stereotyping stops across seven counties
The injunction applies in the Central District of California, which includes Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, Los Angeles, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Ventura counties. It prohibits the government from enforcing a practice of detentive stops based on racial stereotyping there.
Border-related exceptions remain. The order allows stops at a port of entry, checkpoint or other functional equivalent of the border.
“In developing reasonable suspicion, an immigration agent or officer must consider the totality of circumstances and may not rely solely on apparent status as low-income or working-class and Latino, even when an identified target is allegedly low-income or working-class and Latino.”
Frimpong said appearing Latino and working-class alone does not justify detaining someone, even if that person resembles an identified target. Officers must have individualized reasonable suspicion.
Frimpong cited recordings, messages and accounts from residents
The judge pointed to body-camera footage, text messages and accounts submitted by the plaintiffs. The evidence included immigration agents using slurs including “tonk” and “wet” to refer to Latinos.
“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.”
Frimpong wrote that plaintiffs were likely to prove the government had a Los Angeles-area practice of stopping people because they appeared Latino, or Latino and working-class. She described accounts of Latino U.S. citizens whose attempts to prove their citizenship were rejected.
One was a car wash worker who said an agent refused to let him retrieve his passport. The judge also cited instances in which agents detained Latino workers and customers while leaving nearby white people alone.
The ruling is not a final finding that the government maintained an unlawful policy. The Department of Homeland Security has defended its agents’ conduct, saying they are focused on protecting the American people and asking, “Where is the media's outrage for Angel families who lost a loved one to illegal alien crime?”
A Pasadena detention began the case, which has faced earlier court fights
The lawsuit followed a June 18, 2025, detention in Pasadena. Pedro Vasquez Perdomo, Isaac Villegas Molina and Carlos Osorto were waiting for a bus across from a Winchell's Donuts store on Orange Grove Boulevard when federal agents in unmarked cars detained them.
It was about 6 a.m. The men were headed to Altadena to help rebuilding efforts.
The ACLU of Southern California, the National Day Laborer Organizing Network and other community groups filed a putative class action on July 2, 2025. The suit alleged that raids and detention practices in the Los Angeles area violated the Fourth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment’s equal-protection guarantee. It accused the government of targeting brown-skinned people and day laborers without warrants.
On July 12, 2025, a California federal judge temporarily barred the government from relying on perceived ethnicity or job to stop people during immigration raids and ordered DHS to provide detainees access to lawyers. The administration asked the Supreme Court to pause the restrictions on August 7. Immigration-rights groups and individuals urged the court not to do so on August 12.
The Supreme Court stayed the earlier order, which barred stops based solely on race or ethnicity, language, location or employment, alone or in combination. In a 10-page concurring opinion, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said the plaintiffs had no good basis to believe they would face future unlawful stops based on those factors. He also wrote that apparent ethnicity could be relevant alongside other salient factors.
Discovery disputes and community evidence preceded the new order
The litigation continued through disputes over evidence. On June 24, 2026, plaintiffs asked the judge to sanction ICE for disregarding discovery orders. Five days later, 22 Los Angeles-area governments urged the court to issue an injunction against certain warrantless arrests.
On August 5, 2026, a California district judge held the federal government in contempt for failing to comply with an order requiring forensic imaging of phones used by agents. The judge imposed a $500 per day fine until the government complied. A federal judge allowed the lawsuit to proceed on August 12, and Frimpong heard arguments in September 2026.
A group of states supporting the plaintiffs filed an amicus brief. It said the operations began on or around June 6, 2025, and that the court had previously described the enforcement approach as likely unlawful. The brief said California is home to 10.6 million immigrants and the states filing it together have approximately 25.6 million. Almost half of California children have at least one immigrant parent, it said.
The brief also described residents afraid to leave home, businesses and restaurants suffering, families missing graduation ceremonies and residents hesitating to seek health care. It said local law enforcement had been impeded and trust between police and immigrant communities undermined.
The administration appealed while plaintiffs pledged to monitor compliance
The Trump administration filed its notice of appeal on October 28, 2026, asking the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to review the order. The injunction remains active while the appeal is pending.
Mohammad Tajsar, immigrants’ rights director at the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, said plaintiffs would closely monitor compliance. Flor Melendrez, executive director of the CLEAN Carwash Worker Center, said the law requires more than “a biased guess about someone's status.”
Lauren Michel Wilfong, a staff attorney at the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, said the order affirmed Latino workers’ right to go about their lives without detention based on skin color. Carl Bergquist, general counsel at the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, said the group would ensure the order was followed. Executive director Angelica Salas had previously said the arrests were about skin color.
Teresa Romero, president of the United Farm Workers, said farmworkers remained afraid they might not return home from work. Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors chair Hilda L. Solis said the county would stand with residents and their civil liberties while the ruling was challenged. Supervisor Janice Hahn welcomed the order and said residents’ rights remained at risk while immigration agents operated on local streets.
