A significant legal victory for civil rights unfolded in Los Angeles as an appeals court upheld critical restrictions on immigration enforcement tactics. This landmark decision bars federal agents from using an individual’s spoken language or occupation as the sole justification for detention, reinforcing protections against arbitrary stops.

The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by individuals who claimed unlawful detentions, alleging they were stopped by immigration agents without reasonable suspicion. These plaintiffs, some of whom were waiting at bus stops for work and others who were U.S. citizens, highlighted a pattern of aggressive questioning and denial of access to legal counsel.

Central to the appeals court decision was the reaffirmation of a temporary restraining order issued in July, which stipulates that detentions can only occur if an officer has “reasonable suspicion” of a person’s violation of U.S. immigration law. Crucially, this suspicion cannot be based solely on factors like apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or accented English, presence at specific locations like day laborer sites, or the type of work performed.

While the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals noted a minor vagueness in the original order concerning an “except as permitted by law” clause, it chose not to put the overall order on hold, thereby maintaining its protective provisions. This underscores the court’s intent to keep the primary safeguards against discriminatory practices intact.

The case brings into sharp focus past immigration enforcement actions in Los Angeles, which saw intense raids and drew widespread condemnation. Local leaders had previously decried these operations as campaigns designed to instill fear within communities, emphasizing the need for legal oversight and accountability.

Legal advocates, including Mark Rosenbaum of Public Counsel, lauded the appeals court ruling as a powerful message against illegal conduct predicated on racial profiling. He asserted that such raids were “unconstitutional, unsupported by evidence, and rooted in fear and harmful stereotypes, not public safety,” marking a significant win for advocacy groups.

Conversely, the Department of Homeland Security has consistently rejected claims that its immigration enforcement is based on race or ethnicity, maintaining that agents target individuals who lack legal authorization to be in the country. DHS officials have also voiced concerns about judicial interventions they perceive as undermining enforcement efforts.

Ultimately, this appeals court ruling reinforces the rule of law and offers continued protection for communities in Los Angeles. It solidifies the principle that immigration law must be enforced within constitutional boundaries, ensuring that fundamental civil rights are safeguarded even during sensitive enforcement operations.