A federal judge barred immigration agents in Southern California from stopping people based on racial stereotypes, finding evidence of an unwritten, “officially sanctioned” policy of targeting people who appear Latino.

In her order granting a preliminary injunction, U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong cited “a mountain of evidence” provided by the plaintiffs, including [body-camera footage and text messages](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-07-27/immigration-agents-racial-profiling-aclu) that captured immigration agents referring to Latinos using slurs such as “tonk” and “wet.”

“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.

The injunction, issued last week and made public Thursday, requires agents to establish individualized reasonable suspicion before detaining someone for immigration enforcement, rather than relying on racial stereotypes. Simply appearing to be Latino and working class is insufficient, Frimpong wrote, even if a person shares those characteristics with an identified target. The order exempts stops at ports of entry, checkpoints and other functional equivalents of the border.

Frimpong concluded that plaintiffs were likely to prove the practice violated the 4th Amendment’s protection against unreasonable seizures and the 5th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection.

The judge noted that her ruling was not a final determination that the government maintained an unlawful policy. The Trump administration filed a notice of appeal Wednesday, seeking review by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

In an application to stay Frimpong’s order pending the appeal, a Justice Department official said the injunction “gravely hinders the government’s ability to conduct immigration stops.”

…

Tajsar said the plaintiffs would closely monitor the government’s compliance with [the injunction](https://www.aclusocal.org/app/uploads/2026/10/ECF-823-Order-Granting-Suspicionless-Stops-PI.pdf).

…

Based on the evidence, Frimpong said, plaintiffs “have shown that they will likely be able to prove the Government does have a policy in the Los Angeles area of stopping people for immigration purposes just because they look Latino or because they look Latino and working class.”

The judge cited accounts of Latino U.S. citizens whose attempts to establish their citizenship were rejected, including a car wash worker who said an agent refused to let him retrieve his passport. She also described instances in which agents detained Latino workers and customers while leaving white people nearby alone.

Frimpong’s order applies in the Central District of California, which encompasses Los Angeles and the surrounding areas, including Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties.

The newly disclosed evidence had not yet been turned over by the government when the Supreme Court [last year](https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2025-09-08/supreme-court-immigration-stops-los-angeles) stayed the judge’s [earlier order](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-07-11/federal-judge-temporarily-halts-alleged-indiscriminate-immigration-stops) barring stops based solely on race or ethnicity, language, location or employment, either alone or in combination.

In a 10-page concurring opinion, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said the plaintiffs had no good basis to believe law enforcement would unlawfully stop them in the future based on the prohibited factors. He also wrote that apparent ethnicity can be a relevant factor in immigration stops when considered alongside other salient factors and that reasonable suspicion permits brief stops for questioning.

But Frimpong wrote that the new request differed from the earlier one in its evidence, legal theories and proposed relief. The Supreme Court had not explained its reasons for granting the stay, she noted, and Kavanaugh’s concurrence was not binding precedent.