LA judge blocks feds from carrying out warrantless arrests in SoCal

LOS ANGELES (KESQ) - A Los Angeles federal judge today granted a preliminary injunction blocking immigration agents in Southern California from conducting warrantless arrests without an assessment of the targeted individuals' likelihood of escape.

U.S. District Judge Maame Frimpong found federal immigration agents are "regularly abstaining from conducting a likelihood of escape analysis at all."   

Further, the court noted "plaintiffs have demonstrated that the policy is ongoing'' and that testimony by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's own agents supports the conclusion that it was due to this illegal warrantless arrest policy and not "isolated instances of agents going rogue,'' the judge wrote.  

The court also certified a class of individuals who, since June 6, 2025, have been or will be arrested by federal agents for alleged immigration violations, without a warrant, and without an individualized escape risk assessment.

Under federal law, immigration agents may make a warrantless civil immigration arrest only when they have probable cause to believe both that a person is undocumented and that the person is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained. In addition to stopping the unlawful practice of conducting warrantless arrests without first determining whether a person is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained, the court orders the federal government to comply with the following conditions:

-- Immigration agents must consider the totality of circumstances known to agent before making the arrest, including escape risk;  

-- Agents must stop relying on the escape risk standard or analytical approach set forth in the five-page memorandum from former acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Todd Lyons, issued in January, which illegally suggested that merely being undocumented was sufficient as a likelihood of escape; and   

-- Agents must document their analysis of escape risk when conducting warrantless arrests in the Central District of California.   

"This ruling is one of the most important decisions to date in the community's effort to end the federal government's cruel and illegal practice of abducting people and separating them from their families,'' Mayra Joachin, senior staff attorney at the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, said in a statement.  

"By requiring immigration agents to follow the law's requirement to make escape risk determinations before they can arrest someone without a warrant, this court order should put an end to hundreds -- if not more -- of unlawful arrests that continue throughout Southern California. We will closely
monitor compliance with this court order, and expect the federal government to abide by it."  

Asked previously about the preliminary injunction, the DHS insisted federal agents are engaging in protecting American citizens above all other considerations.  

"Our agents are focused on protecting the American people -- not entertaining performative outrage,'' according to a statement from DHS. "Where is the media's outrage for Angel families who lost a loved one to illegal alien crime?"

"Angel families'' refers to the family members of those killed by undocumented individuals present in the United States.   

The judge's order to grant the ACLU's motion stems from the closely watched Vasquez Perdomo vs. Noem case, a lawsuit challenging the legality of the Trump administration's immigration raids in Southern California.   

Since the administration began its raids in Los Angeles last year, federal agents have routinely carried out warrantless arrests without first conducting an escape risk evaluation as required, according to the ACLU.   

The plaintiffs allege that a review of 113 arrest records found that nearly 80% either contained no assessment of escape risk or relied on largely standardized language, suggesting a lack of necessary, individualized determination.

The decision was distinct from a related challenge brought by plaintiffs alleging racial profiling and stops without adequate suspicion of a crime, which will be heard by Frimpong at a later date. The judge has rejected the Trump administration's attempt to end the lawsuit, which contends that DHS immigration raids in the region are not just unlawful, but deliberately designed to target Latino communities.   

Federal immigration agents are required, by federal law, to either effectuate a warranted arrest, or, without a warrant, find probable cause of deportation and likelihood of escape before a warrant can be obtained.   

According to the ACLU, the stops across the Central District of California have continued even after last summer's street raids ceased.   

Residents, workers and advocacy groups sued DHS in July 2025, alleging unconstitutional stop and detention practices by agents tied to arbitrary enforcement quotas. The judge initially issued a temporary restraining order limiting certain enforcement actions. However, in August 2025, the Supreme Court granted the government's request to stay that order while litigation proceeds, allowing the challenged practices to continue.   

Plaintiffs' attorneys recently filed documents in Los Angeles federal court allegedly showing text messages and body-cam footage revealing agents using racial slurs to identify arrest targets. Immigration advocacy groups argued the evidence showed DHS agents chiefly went after "people who appear Latino and low-income or working-class,'' according to a court filing.