A federal judge in California has found the U.S. government in civil contempt for failing to comply with a court order requiring forensic imaging of personal phones used by immigration agents involved in specified enforcement operations. U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong’s July 28 order imposes a fine of $500 per day until the government fully complies with the directive issued by a magistrate judge in January.

The litigation, initiated last year by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, Public Counsel, and other legal groups, challenges what they describe as unlawful stops and arrests by immigration agents and seeks access to communications to verify whether the agents had reasonable suspicion during operations. U.S. Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym ordered the government to forensically image phones used by agents present at 15 identified enforcement actions, aiming to uncover potential constitutional violations.

Despite the order, the government has yet to image a single personal phone belonging to immigration agents. During a contempt hearing on June 25, a Justice Department attorney acknowledged that while government-issued phones were being imaged at a slow pace, personal phones posed a greater challenge. According to the government, 885 officers reported using personal phones for work-related purposes, with 88 consenting to imaging; however, no personal phones had been examined to that point. The process was described as complicated by geographic dispersal of agents and concerns about intrusion.

Judge Frimpong rejected the government’s contention that delays were justified by the process’s complexity, noting that no substantive imaging had commenced or been scheduled for personal devices. She emphasized the government had not provided a satisfactory estimate for completing the task, ordering progress reports every seven days and requiring the government to pay daily fines until compliance.

In response, a Department of Justice spokesperson defended its position, asserting vigorous defense of immigration enforcement policies and criticizing the court’s jurisdiction to order such discovery, citing a Supreme Court stay on a related order that barred stops based on race, ethnicity, language, location, or employment status. The DOJ statement described the district court’s actions as contrary to the Supreme Court’s ruling and reiterated confidence in prevailing on the matter.

From the Department of Homeland Security, officials characterized calls to image agents’ phones as “performative outrage,” emphasizing the priority of public safety and dismissing the litigation as distraction from protecting the American people.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys argued that imaging the phones was essential to uncover evidence of potential unlawful conduct by agents, especially after prior revelations of racially insensitive comments captured in communications and on body camera footage. Mayra Joachín, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, stated that the government was deliberately withholding critical evidence and violating court orders and constitutional protections.

The court also ordered the government to reimburse the plaintiffs for time and expenses incurred in compelling compliance. This case highlights ongoing tensions between immigration enforcement agencies and civil liberties advocates over transparency, accountability, and constitutional rights during immigration operations.