Federal agents in Southern California can no longer stop people for immigration purposes just because they appear Latino or working class.

U.S. District Judge Maame Frimpong's preliminary injunction, issued Oct. 23 but largely sealed until Thursday, Oct. 29, bars the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from conducting detention stops based on racial stereotyping across the Central District of California. That district spans seven counties: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Ventura.

The ruling, first reported by Spectrum News, requires agents to establish individualized reasonable suspicion before detaining someone. Stops at ports of entry, checkpoints and other functional equivalents of the border are exempt.

What the order says

Frimpong cited what the Los Angeles Times described as "a mountain of evidence" from plaintiffs, including body-camera footage and text messages in which immigration agents used racial slurs.

The order specifies that "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," according to Spectrum News.

Frimpong found plaintiffs were likely to prove the practice violated the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable seizures and the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection, the Times reported. The order is not a final determination that the government maintained an unlawful policy.

Evidence of slurs and roving patrols

Evidence presented in the case showed federal agents had been carrying out warrantless and discriminatory immigration enforcement stops in the region since the summer of 2025, according to Spectrum News.

In one video discussed in the plaintiffs' motion, a DHS agent told another: "Yeah, just plug us in wherever you see some tonks." The complaint says "tonks" is a derogatory term understood to refer to the sound of a flashlight striking a migrant's head. Other agents guessed whether people were "wet," short for a racist slur directed at Latino immigrants, according to Spectrum News.

Frimpong also cited accounts of Latino U.S. citizens whose attempts to prove their citizenship were rejected, including a car wash worker who said an agent would not let him retrieve his passport, the Times reported. She described instances in which agents detained Latino workers while leaving white people nearby alone.

The government's response

DHS has denied allegations of racial profiling. In a statement reported by Spectrum News, DHS said: "Our agents are focused on protecting the American people."

The Trump administration filed a notice of appeal Wednesday, Oct. 28, seeking review by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the Times reported. In an application to stay the order, senior Justice Department lawyer August Flentje wrote that the injunction would "create an untenable situation in which a federal court micromanages every operation and stop conducted in a District of 20 million people."

Plaintiffs and the case's origins

The case, Vasquez Perdomo v. Mullin, traces to a June 18, 2025, incident in Pasadena. Three men waiting for a bus near a Winchell's Donuts on Orange Grove Boulevard around 6 a.m. were surrounded by federal agents in unmarked cars and detained, according to the Daily News. They had been heading to Altadena to help with rebuilding efforts.

The ACLU Foundation of Southern California, Public Counsel and other groups filed the lawsuit in July 2025. Frimpong also partly certified a class of individuals affected by the practice, according to Spectrum News.

Mohammad Tajsar, director of immigrants' rights at the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, said in a statement that plaintiffs would "closely monitor compliance with this court order."

Flor Melendrez, executive director of CLEAN Carwash Worker Center, a plaintiff in the case, said: "For over a year, agents have been showing up at car washes and taking people without a warrant, never asking whether they have a family and a home to return to."

The 9th Circuit has not yet ruled on the administration's request to stay the injunction.