Southern California Lawyers File Civil Rights Claims Over ICE Immigration Raids

(SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA) Attorneys in Southern California filed a new round of federal tort claims on August 21, 2025, alleging civil rights violations during summer immigration raids carried out by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol. The claims cover six people—five U.S. citizens and one lawful permanent resident who say they were wrongfully detained, physically abused, and racially profiled during operations across the region in June and July.

Lawyers say the tort filings are a required step before lawsuits and point to a broader pattern targeting Latino U.S. citizens during workplace and street stops. According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the legal fight has already reshaped how federal agents operate in Southern California, at least for now.

Related Litigation and Parties

The tort claims come alongside a high-profile class action, Vasquez-Perdomo v. Noem, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

• The class action was filed in early July and later amended by a coalition that includes:
  • ACLU of Southern California
  • Public Counsel
  • National Day Laborer Organizing Network
  • UC Irvine School of Law’s Immigrant and Racial Justice Solidarity Clinic
• The suit alleges:
  • Recent raids relied on racially targeted stops and warrantless arrests.
  • Detainees were blocked from attorneys and held in poor conditions at the B-18 federal facility in downtown Los Angeles.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys—including Luis Carrillo, Michael Carrillo, and Professor Annie Lai—say the tort claims mirror the class allegations and are aimed at accountability for ICE and CBP. Advocates describe the stops as “brazen, midday kidnappings” that alarmed residents far beyond those detained.

Court Orders and Pending Timeline

In July, a federal judge issued two Temporary Restraining Orders (TROs) that still stood as of August 20, 2025. The orders:

• Bar stops based solely on race, ethnicity, language, location, or type of work, finding those criteria likely violate the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
• Require immediate access to lawyers for everyone detained at the B-18 facility, including on weekends and holidays.

Key dates and procedural posture:

1. A hearing on a preliminary injunction is set for September 24, 2025.
2. The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to pause these limits.
3. An appeals court has, so far, declined to lift the TROs, keeping the current rules in place while the case moves forward.

More than 20 cities—including Los Angeles, Pasadena, Santa Monica, and Santa Ana—have joined the class action as intervenors. City leaders argue the raids harmed public safety, scared witnesses and victims from reporting crime, and disrupted civic life by lowering school and clinic visits, as well as causing lost work hours and business disruptions.

The State of California, led by Attorney General Rob Bonta and supported by Governor Gavin Newsom, has filed amicus briefs siding with the plaintiffs and calling the tactics unlawful and harmful to community trust.

Community Impact and Federal Response

Families across Southern California report fear and confusion after the raids.

• Parents skipped work; children missed school.
• Some residents, including U.S. citizens, avoided hospitals and city services.
• Labor groups, including United Farm Workers, reported workers skipping shifts and losing wages after raids at job sites.
• School officials in several districts reported drops in attendance during the peak enforcement period.

Legal groups say the TROs have provided a short-term safety net:

• Agents must have reasonable suspicion for a stop.
• Detainees must be able to speak to a lawyer quickly, including on weekends.
• That access has reportedly prevented some transfers and discouraged signing of documents without counsel.

The Department of Homeland Security has not offered a detailed public response to the claims; the federal government maintains that immigration enforcement is lawful and necessary. The court is testing how due process and equal protection apply to both citizens and non-citizens during fast-moving field operations.

Advocates and state officials compared the recent enforcement push to “Operation Wetback” (1954), when people of Mexican descent—including U.S. citizens—were rounded up and deported. President Trump has praised hardline historical models and promised tough enforcement, a stance that shapes the legal and political clash.

Legal Aims and Process

The class action seeks to:

• Certify a broad group affected by the raids.
• Obtain court orders to stop the practices at issue.
• Set rules around stops, arrests, and attorney access going forward.

The tort claims filed on August 21 seek damages for wrongful detention and abuse. Under federal law:

• A person must file a tort claim with the government before suing.
• The agency can settle, deny, or ignore the claim within a set period.
• If the claimant is unsatisfied, a civil lawsuit may follow.

For details on the Federal Tort Claims Act process, see the Justice Department’s explanation: https://www.justice.gov/civil/ftca.

Practical Advice and Protections Under the TROs

Attorneys and advocates advise people worried about ICE or CBP encounters to know the protections now emphasized by the court orders:

• Agents cannot stop someone solely based on race, looks, language, or where they work.
• Detainees at B-18 must be allowed to speak with a lawyer quickly, including on weekends and holidays.
• People do not have to sign documents they do not understand; access to counsel is required under the TRO.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers also encourage witnesses to document incidents:

• Write down badge numbers, locations, and times if you witness a stop believed to be unlawful.
• Contact trusted legal groups and local officials participating in the case; several cities said they will collect reports to help track patterns and potential repeat conduct.

What’s Next and Wider Implications

The next milestone is the September 24, 2025 hearing on a preliminary injunction.

• If the injunction is granted, the court could extend the TROs or set new, longer-term rules while the case proceeds.
• If denied, the TROs could lapse and agents might return to previous tactics.
• The Trump administration’s emergency request to the Supreme Court could alter the timeline depending on the justices’ response.

This case is being watched nationally because:

• Courts often look to each other when shaping rules in fast-moving enforcement areas.
• A detailed ruling here could influence how agents conduct stops and detentions beyond Southern California.

For families, workers, and city leaders the practical question is: can the government carry out its duties without crossing constitutional lines? For the courts the legal question is: what counts as reasonable suspicion, and when must agents stop and let a lawyer in?

The core issue, plaintiffs and cities say, remains preventing civil rights violations while keeping communities safe. Federal officials say they need enforcement tools. The court will decide how those goals can coexist and where the Constitution draws the limit.