
Judge Blocks ICE From Racial Profiling in LA Migrant Sweeps
The order Friday by US District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong is the latest fallout from the Trump administration's controversial crackdown on migrants in California and across the US. It came in a lawsuit by a group of Southern California residents, workers and advocacy groups who accused President Donald Trump's administration of terrorizing the population with heavy handed and unconstitutional tactics.
'Today's historic ruling means the federal government cannot fence off the Constitution from Los Angeles and surrounding communities,' said Mark Rosenbaum, a senior lawyer at Public Counsel, which represents the plaintiffs. 'The question now for our federal government is whether it is prepared to conduct its operations under the rule of law. To date, the answer has been no.'
The judge said she will hold a hearing later on the groups' request for a longer-lasting preliminary injunction that would block the alleged conduct while the lawsuit proceeds, which could take months or longer.
The judge barred agents in the Los Angeles area from stopping and questioning individuals without reasonable suspicion that they're in the US illegally. The order forbids the agents from basing their suspicion on race, ethnicity, speaking Spanish, speaking English with an accent, the type of the work they do or where they are located.
Tricia McLaughlin, a spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, said 'a district judge is undermining the will of the American people.'
'America's brave men and women are removing murderers, MS-13 gang members, pedophiles, rapists — truly the worst of the worst — from Golden State communities,' she said in an emailed statement. 'Law and order will prevail.'
The government didn't provide evidence in the case that the people being detained in the area had committed such crimes.
The order by Frimpong, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, is a rebuke to the administration's raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in public spaces to make mass arrests. It comes as a wide swath of the most populous state's Democratic elected officials, from Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass to Governor Gavin Newsom, have slammed the Trump administration over its alleged conduct.
The disputed tactics include using National Guard troops to protect ICE agents during immigration sweeps and deploying US Marines in downtown Los Angeles to help quell protests, both of which triggered separate lawsuits. But the targeting of suspected migrants by masked and armed immigration agents has been a focal point of Democratic criticism.
'Armed to the hilt, masked, and driving unmarked cars, they have adopted a central strategy of grabbing people first and asking questions later,' the groups said in their request for a restraining order.
Trump has argued that his tactics are in line with the president's constitutional authority to carry out immigration policy and that voters elected him to follow through on his vow to deport millions of undocumented immigrants. Trump has frequently portrayed migrants as criminals who pose a threat to Americans, but court records show many law-abiding noncitizens have been swept up across the country.
The groups that sued in Los Angeles, the second-largest US metropolitan area and a focal point of Trump's effort, argued in court filings that federal immigration agents are violating the Constitution by conducting stops 'without reasonable suspicion' that the individuals were in the US illegally. The agents are trying to meet 'an arbitrary quota for 3,000 daily arrests imposed by the White House,' the groups said.
'But while defendants may believe that immigration enforcement can be a numbers game, the Fourth Amendment requires that seizures be reasonable,' they said in a filing.
The filings cite detailed examples of alleged wrongdoing by federal agents, including a man who says he was 'grabbed' at a car wash and interrogated by agents who knew 'nothing more at the time than that he had brown skin and was present at the car wash.' Another man, a plaintiff in the suit, was detained at a tow yard where he was working on his car.
'He told them he was American, but they violently persisted in their questioning, demanding that he tell him what hospital he was born in, and only let him go after he showed them his Real ID, for which they had not even asked,' according to the filing.
The plaintiffs argue that 'roving patrols' targeting day laborers, street vendors, farm workers and other were 'expressly directed' by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, who told high level officials at ICE to 'just go out there and arrest' unauthorized noncitizens by rounding them up in public spaces like 'Home Depot' and '7-Eleven' stores, according to court filings.
The groups allege that similar racial profiling has been underway at raids in agricultural sites, bus stops, packing houses and churches.
Newsom praised Friday's ruling, saying 'justice prevailed,' while Bass said it affirms 'the Constitution, American values and decency.'
--With assistance from Robert Burnson and Anthony Aarons.
(Updates with comments by plaintiffs starting in third paragraph)
More stories like this are available on bloomberg.com
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)

Business Standard
33 minutes ago
- Business Standard
States should frame land-for-land policies in rarest of rare case: SC
The Supreme Court has cautioned states against their "land-for-land" policies and said such schemes should be floated in rarest of the rare cases. Press Trust of India New Delhi The Supreme Court has cautioned states against their "land-for-land" policies and said such schemes should be floated in rarest of the rare cases. A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan further said a plea of deprivation of right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution to oppose the land acquisition by the state was unsustainable as it called the litigation pursued by Haryana as an eye opener" for all states. The bench was acting on a batch of pleas filed by the Estate Officer of Haryana Urban Development Authority and others challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court's 2016 decision that upheld the trial court decrees favoring oustees. We have made ourselves very explicitly clear that in cases of land acquisition the plea of deprivation of right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution is unsustainable, Justice Pardiwala said in a 88-page verdict on July 14. The high court held displaced landowners, whose land was acquired by Haryana authorities for public purposes, entitled to benefit under the 2016 Rehabilitation Policy and not the older, more concessional 1992 scheme. The verdict was critical of Haryana's very unusual policy on land acquisition. Under it, if the government acquires land for public purposes, it provides alternate plots of land to the oustees. The top court observed only in rarest of rare cases the government might consider floating any scheme for rehabilitation of the displaced persons over and above paying them compensation in terms of money. "At times the State Government with a view to appease its subjects float unnecessary schemes and ultimately land up in difficulties. It would unnecessarily give rise to a number of litigations. The classic example is the one at hand, it added. It is not necessary that in all cases over and above compensation in terms of money, rehabilitation of the property owners is a must, the bench noted. Any beneficial measures taken by the Government should be guided only by humanitarian considerations of fairness and equity towards the landowners, it said. The dispute traces back to the land acquired by the Haryana government in early 1990s. While compensation was awarded under the Land Acquisition Act, a parallel state policy promised rehabilitation plots to those displaced. However, the oustees failed to apply in the prescribed format or deposit the required earnest money in line with the 1992 policy terms. Most of the lawsuits were filed 14 to 20 years after acquisition, seeking mandatory injunction under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act. Dealing with the issues, the bench said the oustees couldn't claim a legal right to plots at the 1992 rates and the 2016 policy, as revised in 2018, would apply. It said oustees were criticised for filing civil suits after unjustifiable delays of over a decade, well beyond the three-year period under the Limitation Act. Though the top court found the suits technically non-maintainable, it exercised equitable jurisdiction to extend the benefit of the 2016 policy. The respondents (oustees) are not entitled to claim as a matter of legal right relying on the decision of that they should be allotted plots as oustees only at the price as determined in the 1992 policy, it said. The bench observed oustees were entitled at the most to seek the benefit of the 2016 policy for the purpose of allotment of plots as oustees. The apex court then granted four weeks to all respondents to make an appropriate online application with deposit of the requisite amount in accordance with the policy of 2016. "If within a period of four weeks any of the respondents herein prefer any online application in accordance with the scheme of 2016 then in such circumstances the authority concerned shall look into the applications and process the same in accordance with the scheme of 2016, it said. The bench clarified it would be up to the authority to examine whether the oustees were eligible for the allotment of plots or not. We make it clear that there shall not be any further extension of time for the purpose of applying online with deposit of the requisite amount, it said. Observing some of oustees might be rustic and illiterate and unable to apply online, the top court allowed them to apply by preferring an appropriate application or otherwise addressed to the competent authority with the deposit of the requisite amount. The bench ordered Haryana and HUDA to ensure land grabbers or other miscreants didn't form a cartel to benefit from the allotment of plots.
&w=3840&q=100)

First Post
39 minutes ago
- First Post
How Donald Trump's weapon deal with Ukraine is inviting Maga ire
US President Donald Trump's decision to send weapons to Ukraine to help its defence against Russia has some in the Make America Great Again (Maga) movement irate. Here's what some leading figures in Maga land including Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene and Steve Bannon are saying and the potential fallout read more US President Donald Trump has taken a harsher line on Vladimir Putin recently. Reuters File Since the moment he announced he was running for president, Donald Trump's base has had unshakable faith in him. They stayed with him through the Access Hollywood tape when it looked like his campaign was at an end. They remained loyal after he was defeated by Joe Biden in the 2020 election and during the January 6 insurrection at the Capitol. Trump himself had boasted about his followers' loyalty, saying he could probably get away with shooting someone on 5th Avenue. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD However, seven months into his second term, the Make America Great Again (Maga) movement seems to be growing more upset with Trump. Why is this happening? Because of the Ukraine war, which Trump vowed to end 'within 24 hours' of taking office. But it's not so much as the war continuing itself. More specifically, it's about Washington sending weapons to Kyiv to defend itself. But what happened? What is Maga world saying? Let's take a closer look: What happened? Trump returned to the Oval Office as the 'anti-war candidate'. He claimed that Kamala Harris getting the top job would make World War III an inevitability. He vowed to bring an end to the war between Russia and Ukraine quickly and painlessly. He had criticised the US' proclivity to get into 'forever wars' or endless wars. He repeatedly vowed that he was going to 'stop wars' instead of starting them. As a candidate during the previous elections, he had also taken shots at the 'warmongers and America-last' globalists including his rivals Nikki Haley in 2024 and Jeb Bush in 2016. 'Let's kill people all over the place and let's make a lot of money for those people that make the messes', Trump said of Haley in January 2024. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'We should have never been in Iraq,' Trump said in February 2016. 'They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none and they knew that there were none.' However, his actions as president during his 2nd term have been nearly diametrically opposed to what he said on the campaign trail. Not only has Trump supported Israel's war in Gaza, he has also conducted airstrikes on the Houthis. Many in his Maga base, whose patience and love for Israel runs deep, have backed him up on this. Some even supported Trump bombing Iran's nuclear facilities. A B-52 Stratofortress assigned to the 2nd Bomb Wing at Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana, takes off at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, on April 14, 2023. (Representative Photo, Credit: US Air Force) However, it looks like Trump's decision to send weapons to Ukraine to help in its war with Russia may be one war too many for the Maga faithful. Trump on Monday announced that the United States would be sending weapons to Ukraine via Nato. Trump, during a meeting with Nato Secretary-General Mark Rutte, announced that the organisation would pay for the weapons. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'We've made a deal today where we are going to be sending them weapons and they're going to be paying for them', Trump said. He also warned Russia to end the war with Ukraine in 50 days. Trump on Sunday had said the US would send Ukraine 'various pieces of very sophisticated military equipment'. 'We will send them Patriots, which they desperately need,' Trump added. While Trump didn't specify the number of Patriot batteries to be sent he said 'they're going to have some because they do need protection'. Trump has long since called for other nations in Nato to increase their defence spending. Many in the orthodox wing of the Republican Party, known as the hawks, have erupted with joy. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a huge Trump supporter, said it was a turning point'. 'The game, regarding [Vladimir] Putin's invasion of Russia, is about to change', Graham added. This decision came a week after the Pentagon paused the flow of weapons to Ukraine. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD This decision, seemingly made by the deputy defence secretary and signed off by his boss Pete Hegseth, was initially celebrated by some in the Maga camp. Trump in recent weeks has taken a harsher line on Russian President Vladimir Putin, whom he previously praised. These recent events have cast a pall over Maga world, many of whom have taken a stance that is just short of being pro-Russia. What is Maga world saying? Some in Maga world are furious with Trump's decision. Republican Congresswomen Marjorie Taylor Greene on social media slammed 'backdoor deals through Nato'. Greene said the development was in stark contrast to what she promised voters on the campaign trail. 'It's not just Ukraine; it's all foreign wars in general and a lot of foreign aid,' she said. 'This is what we campaigned on. This is what I promised also to my district. This is what everybody voted for. And I believe we have to maintain the course.' 'Without a shadow of a doubt, our tax dollars are being used', she added. 'I said it on every rally stage: no more money to Ukraine. We want peace. We just want peace for those people,' she said. 'And guess what? People haven't changed'. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Surface-to-air missile launchers of the Patriot (Wisla) system newly added into the Integrated Battle Command System (IBCS) at an army base in Sochaczew, Poland. File image/Reuters Former Trump strategist Steve Bannon, who many during the first term referred to as 'Trump's brain', also slammed the decision. Bannon on his podcast called the Ukraine conflict a "European war". 'Ukraine is getting so dangerous", Bannon said. 'It's a European war. Let Europe deal with it'. 'They have the resources. They have the manpower'. 'We're about to arm people we have literally no control over', Bannon added. 'This is old-fashioned, grinding war in the bloodlands of Europe - and we're being dragged into it'. A former Trump campaign official said Europe buying the weapons somewhat mitigates the anger from the Maga base. 'But we still hate it,' the official told Politico. 'This is not our war, and escalation isn't in America's interest'. The larger question is if this Ukraine decision will cause Trump's base to turn on him in the long run. Ukraine unpopular with Republicans Data show that Ukraine isn't very popular with Republicans. Just 59 per cent of Republicans think the US is helping Ukraine 'too much,' as per a March poll. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD That number was at 56 per cent in another poll. Just 1 in 10 Republicans want the US more involved in the conflict. There are also little concerns about Russia within the party. Rescue workers extinguish a fire of a house destroyed by a Russian strike in Markhalivka village, Kyiv region, Ukraine. AP file/Representative image Only 25 per cent of Republican-leaning Americans said they are 'extremely' or 'very' concerned about Russia defeating Ukraine in a March poll. Only 29 per cent said they were concerned that Russia would invade other nations. A mere 40 per cent think Russia is the 'enemy'. A Reuters poll also showed 58% of Republicans tended to agree with the statement 'the problems of Ukraine are none of our business, and we should not interfere.' A majority of Republicans (63-34) also oppose sending weapons and money to Ukraine. Remember, the base right now is already irate at Trump over his handling of the files related to the Jeffrey Epstein allegations. While Trump has called on his supporters to 'move on' from the Epstein saga, many Maga supporters show no signs of being inclined to do so. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD However, history shows that the Maga faithful have always trailed in the direction that Trump led them in. While the idea of conducting strikes on Iran initially repulsed some on the right, eight in 10 Republicans afterwards backed up their Commander-in-Chief. Since so many in Maga land have stuck with Trump through thick and thin, it is unlikely that Ukraine will be the final straw. With inputs from agencies


NDTV
43 minutes ago
- NDTV
"Can You Hit Moscow?" Trump Asked Zelensky To Make Putin "Feel The Pain"
Washington: US President Donald Trump has said he's "disappointed but not done" with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, who is showing no signs of ending the war in Ukraine. Trump gave a 50-day deadline to Moscow to end its conflict with Ukraine or face 100 per cent sanctions. But privately, he reportedly also encouraged Ukraine to step up strikes deep into Russian territory-- as far as Moscow or St Petersburg. Voicing his fresh frustration with Moscow, Trump also laid out an arrangement with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) to supply Kyiv with new military aid sponsored by the alliance's members. But Trump's departure from his previous stance of ending US involvement in the Russian conflict is reportedly not sudden. Per a report by Financial Express, the US leader's frustration with Putin had been brewing for a while, as in a July 4 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, he had proposed providing long-range weapons to Kyiv to hit targets deep in Russia. "Volodymyr, can you hit Moscow?... Can you hit St Petersburg too?" Trump reportedly asked Zelensky on the call. Zelenskyy replied, "Absolutely. We can if you give us the weapons." While it remains unclear whether Washington will deliver such weapons, Trump on Sunday said the US will send Patriot air defence missiles to Ukraine, saying they are necessary to defend the country because Russian President Vladimir Putin "talks nice but then he bombs everybody in the evening." Trump's call to Zelensky reportedly came after he spoke with Putin and was left convinced that Moscow had no plan to halt its war machine. The American President's move underscores his deepening frustration with Putin's refusal to engage in ceasefire talks proposed by him to end the war that he once vowed to end in a day. Trump has signalled that his changing stance on Russia is intended to "make them [Russians] feel the pain" and force the Kremlin to the negotiating table, according to the Financial Times report. The Republican is also forcing Moscow and Kyiv to open peace talks to end the conflict, now in its fourth year, but Russia has rejected calls for a ceasefire and launched a record number of drones and missiles at Ukraine in recent months. The Kremlin warned on Tuesday that Trump's pledge of more weapons for Kyiv and threat of sanctions targeting Russian trading partners could embolden Ukraine and further delay already stalled peace efforts. "It seems that such a decision made in Washington and in NATO countries and directly in Brussels will be perceived by Kyiv not as a signal for peace but for the continuation of the war," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters. "President Trump's statement is very serious. We certainly need time to analyse what was said in Washington," he told reporters in Moscow's first reaction to the comments.