A federal judge in Southern California has issued a preliminary injunction barring Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from conducting stops based solely on racial stereotypes, particularly targeting individuals who appear Latino. U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong ruled that ICE agents must establish individualized reasonable suspicion before detaining someone for immigration enforcement, rather than relying on appearance or socioeconomic status as a basis for stops.

The injunction, issued last week and covering the Central District of California—which includes Los Angeles and surrounding counties such as Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino—prohibits stops that profile individuals based on race or ethnicity except at ports of entry, checkpoints, or functional equivalents of the border. The ruling was prompted by evidence presented by plaintiffs, including body-camera footage, text message exchanges among agents, and witness accounts that suggest a widespread and “officially sanctioned” practice of racially profiling Latinos. Some of the disclosed materials included agents using racial slurs and describing operations targeting broad demographics rather than specific suspected individuals.

Judge Frimpong emphasized that while the injunction is not a final ruling on the government’s policy, the plaintiffs had demonstrated a likelihood of prevailing on their claim that race is a predominant factor in stops conducted by ICE agents in the Los Angeles area. The decision followed earlier legal efforts to challenge race-based immigration enforcement, including a Supreme Court stay last year of a previous order that similarly barred race-based stops. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, in a concurring opinion on that earlier stay, noted that apparent ethnicity could be considered among other relevant factors in forming reasonable suspicion, a view that the judge acknowledged but noted was not binding precedent.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys have argued that new evidence obtained through discovery shows ongoing and widespread racial profiling practices involving so-called “roving patrols” and “collateral arrests,” where agents detain individuals without specific targets, relying instead on demographic characteristics. Some discovery included accounts of ICE agents conducting operations at public locations such as Home Depot stores and car washes, where stops appeared random and often included the detention of U.S. citizens who could not readily prove their status. Testimony from a veteran ICE agent suggested these operations were not genuinely focused on specific targets but rather on broad and suspicionless detentions.

The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, has not issued a public response to the injunction, though it previously denied allegations of racial profiling and referenced Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court opinion as support for agency practices. The government has filed a notice of appeal, seeking review by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Civil rights groups involved in the case praised the ruling as an important step in addressing racial bias in immigration enforcement and pledged to monitor government compliance closely. The legal action reflects ongoing concerns about due process, constitutional protections, and the impact of immigration enforcement on Latino communities in Southern California.