Since early June 2025, the Trump administration has escalated its attacks against southern California immigrant communities with targeted ICE raids across the region (in neighborhoods, worksites, etc.), resulting in the en masse abductions and detention of immigrants in the community.
On July 2, 2025, Plaintiffs—five individuals, three membership organizations (Los Angeles Worker Center Network, United Farm Workers, and Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, CHIRLA), and a legal service provider (Immigrant Defenders Law Center, ImmDef)—filed an amended class action complaint against the Trump administration challenging the government’s usage of tactics, policies, and practices in the region to achieve its intended arrest quotas. Plaintiffs are represented by Public Counsel, the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, the Law Offices of Stacy Tolchin, UC Irvine School of Law Immigrant and Racial Justice Solidarity Clinic, National Day Laborer Organizing Network, ACLU Foundations of Northern California and San Diego & Imperial Counties, Hecker Fink LLP, Martinez Aguilasocho Law, Inc, CHIRLA, and ImmDef.
Plaintiffs—on behalf of themselves and others similarly-situated—allege that these stops and arrests practices and denial of due process and access to counsel for immigrants subjected to these practices are unlawful in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, as well federal statutes and regulations.
On July 2, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a temporary restraining order (TRO) to temporarily block the government’s actions denying Plaintiffs and those similarly situated access to counsel. The next day, July 3, Plaintiffs filed a TRO to additionally temporarily block the government’s stops and arrests practice. Judge Frimpong held a hearing on the TROs on July 10, 2025.
On July 11, 2025, Judge Frimpong granted both TROs temporarily blocking immigration agents from arresting people without reasonable suspicion that they're in the country illegally and otherwise requiring ICE agents to provide individuals they arrest immediate access to lawyers pending issuance of a preliminary injunction order. On July 13, the government appealed the order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The government also filed a motion to stay (pause) the judge’s TROs pending appeal, but the judge denied this request on July 17.
Meanwhile, on July 8, 2025, 8 southern California cities (Los Angeles, Montebello, Monterey Park, Pico Rivera, Santa Monica, West Hollywood, Culver City, and Pasadena) and the County of Los Angeles filed a motion to intervene in the case. On July 29, the judge granted the 8 southern CA cities’ and County of LA’s motion to intervene. Intervenor cities and county subsequently filed an amended complaint the same day.
On September 22, 2025, Plaintiffs and Intervenors filed a joint motion for limited, expedited discovery, and on October 17, 2025, the judge granted the motion. On October 23, the court heard argument on a previous PI motion filed by certain plaintiffs alleging issues relating to detention and access to counsel, and took the motion under submission. On October 27, following the request of Plaintiffs and upon remand of the issue by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the court dissolved the Fourth Amendment TRO issued on July 11, 2025, but left the Fifth Amendment TRO issued the same day in place.
On October 29, 2025, Defendants filed motions to dismiss Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint and to dismiss the case. Plaintiffs’ PI motion remains pending. On November 13, 2025, the court granted Plaintiffs’ PI motion as to detention and access to counsel, ordering Defendants to provide access to legal visitation in the basement of a federal building in Los Angeles where the federal government is detaining immigrants in conjunction with the raids conducted across the area. This includes access to legal visits seven days a week, private rooms for discussions with attorneys and legal representatives, and access to confidential legal telephone calls.
Technical Summary
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have violated the Fourth (unreasonable seizures) and Fifth Amendments (with respect to access to counsel, conditions of confinement, and due process) of the U.S. Constitution as applied to the applicable Plaintiffs and those in the applicable purported classes. Plaintiffs also allege Defendants have violated several federal statutes and regulations: 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2) (warrantless arrests without probable cause of flight risk), 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(c)(2)(ii) (governing standards for stops and warrantless arrests), (c)(2)(iii) (failure to identify authority and reason for arrest), 8 U.S.C. § 1362 (access to counsel).
Plaintiffs seek preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and declaratory relief for themselves and the purported classes. Plaintiffs also seek to represent three classes of individuals who have been or will be subjected to several of the unlawful practices this lawsuit challenges: 1) suspicionless stops; 2) warrantless arrests without evaluations of flight risk; and 3) the failure to identify authority and the reason for arrest.
Latest Updates
- 07/17/2025Order Denying Stay Pending Appeal
Full Timeline and Documents
- 07/11/2025
- 07/02/2025
