SAN FRANCISCO, CA – The Trump administration appeared before an appeals court earlier in July in an attempt to put a stay on a prior restraining order imposed on ICE operations, where a prior federal judge granted a temporary restraining order relating to tactics used by immigration authorities in Los Angeles that have been characterized as “unconstitutional” by those bringing suit against the Trump administration.
On July 28th, an attorney representing the Trump administration presented arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit against a prior ruling in federal court which imposed a temporary restraining order against various immigration enforcement tactics in the Los Angeles area.
The tactics being disputed in a lawsuit brought forth by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California have been characterized by the ACLU as “unlawful stop and arrest practices,” additionally framing the detention of suspected or confirmed illegal immigrants as “abducting and disappearing community members.”
While the courts have yet to determine whether the ACLU’s characterization of the immigration raid tactics bears legitimacy, a July 11th ruling in their favor put a stop to two matters of dispute.
A press release from the ACLU regarding the July 11th temporary restraining order reads, “The first TRO bars immigration agents from stopping individuals without reasonable suspicion and from relying on four factors – alone or in combination – including apparent race or ethnicity; speaking Spanish or English with an accent; presence in a particular location like a bus stop, car wash, or agricultural site; or the work the person does. The second TRO orders DHS to provide access to counsel on weekdays, weekends, and holidays for people who are detained in B-18, the federal building in downtown Los Angeles.”
During the July 28th hearing, attorney Jacob Roth, representing the Trump administration, argued before the three-judge panel that what the ACLU has characterized as unlawful stops and tactics by way of public venues like car washes are in fact completely legal actions stemming from “consensual encounters.”
“Those locations are selected for consensual encounters that may lead to reasonable suspicion,” Roth stated before the court.
However, Mohammad Tajsar, the attorney representing the ACLU during the hearing, rebutted the claim made by Roth, telling the court, “If a masked ICE agent comes up right next to you armed and blocks your path, I don’t think they can argue it is a consensual engagement.”
A decision has yet to be reached in the matter, with Judge Ronald M. Gould telling the attorneys on both sides that they’ll, “hear from us in due course.”
