Federal Court Blocks ICE Raids in California — Again

In August 2025, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the temporary restraining order (TRO) preventing indiscriminate immigration raids in Southern California.

The ruling comes as part of the class action lawsuit Pedro Vasquez Perdomo et al. v. Kristi Noem, which challenges the legality of tactics used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement(ICE).

What did the court order?

The three-judge panel-Ronald M. Gould, Marsha S. Berzon and Jennifer Sung-concluded that:

ICE cannot detain people without reasonable suspicion.
Language, accent, race, location or type of work cannot be used as criteria.
The June raid in Pasadena violated constitutional rights.

This criterion applies to all counties in the Central District of California: Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino.

The origin of the claim

The legal action was filed by Public Counsel and the ACLU following the arrest of five Hispanic workers in Pasadena and other counties.

The detainees claim to have been held without justification or access to lawyers, in what they call a “campaign of institutional kidnapping”.

According to testimonies, masked agents stopped people at bus stops and workplaces without identifying themselves.

This practice was considered a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits arbitrary searches and detentions.

Government arguments and judicial response

During the court appeal hearing, Justice Department prosecutor Yaakov Roth defended the arrests as “legal and justified.”

However, the judges demanded clarity on an alleged quota of 3,000 arrests per day.

Roth denied that such a directive existed, stating that the figure comes from newspaper reports.

The court concluded that the government failed to demonstrate that the detentions were based on objective criteria, but rather on broad profiles without legal validity.

Local leaders and advocates celebrate ruling

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass called the decision a “victory for the rule of law and our communities.”

Several activists have pointed out that this ruling places an important limit on the abuses committed during raids.

Mohammad Tajsar, ACLU attorney, stated:

“This decision confirms that the administration’s paramilitary invasion of Los Angeles violated the Constitution and caused irreparable harm.”

For more information, visit QuéOnnda.com.