LOS ANGELES — A Los Angeles federal judge signaled on Thursday she is leaning toward restricting immigration agents from conducting warrantless arrests without an assessment of the targeted individuals’ likelihood of escape.
At the conclusion of a hearing, U.S. District Judge Maame Frimpong indicated she was poised to grant an ACLU of Southern California motion for a preliminary injunction in the closely watched Vasquez Perdomo vs. Noem case, a lawsuit challenging the legality of the Trump administration’s immigration raids in Southern California.
Since the administration began its raids in Los Angeles last year, federal agents have routinely carried out warrantless arrests without first conducting an escape risk evaluation as required, according to the ACLU.
The plaintiffs allege that a review of 113 arrest records found that nearly 80% either contained no assessment of escape risk or relied on largely standardized language, suggesting a lack of necessary, individualized determination.
It was not immediately known when Frimpong would issue her ruling.
The entire case stems from the early days of the Trump administration’s massive immigration crackdown, which began in earnest in June in Southern California.
On the morning of June 18, 2025, Pedro Vasquez Perdomo, Carlos Alexander Osorto and Isaac Villegas Molina were sitting at a bus stop across from a Pasadena Winchell’s Donuts. That’s when four cars suddenly stopped at the spot, and six masked and armed federal agents emerged and converged, detaining the men without immediately identifying themselves, according to the initial lawsuit.
Along with Jorge Hernandez Viramontes, of Baldwin Park — questioned and detained from his job at an Orange County car wash — and Jason Brian Gavidia, an East L.A. resident stopped and questioned, from an L.A. County tow yard, Osorto and his co-laborers at the Pasadena bus stop found themselves the lead plaintiffs in a federal case that could shape the legal trajectory of President Donald Trump’s massive immigration crackdown.
When the complaint was filed last year, Frimpong issued a temporary restraining order limiting certain enforcement actions across several Southern California counties. A three- judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals mostly agreed with Frimpong’s ruling that the government’s roving immigration patrols were illegally conducted without reasonable suspicion.
In effect, agents, under the ruling, would continue to be prohibited from stopping people without reasonable suspicion, nor “sole reliance” on 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 type of work a person does.
But in August 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the government’s request to stay that order while litigation proceeds, allowing the challenged practices to continue.
- Also see: ACLU — Immigration agents used racial slurs to target Latinos during Southern California raids
Trump administration officials have previously defended the stepped-up enforcement on a number of levels, saying the crackdown is necessary to maintain the rule of law, to capture violent criminals in the country illegally, and to reverse the flood of people who poured over the U.S. Mexico border during the Biden administration.
The hearing Thursday was distinct from the issues over alleged racial profiling and stops without adequate suspicion of a crime, which will be heard by Frimpong at a later date.
Earlier this week, the judge rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to end the lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which contends that immigration raids in the region are not just unlawful, but deliberately designed to target Latino communities.
Federal immigration agents are required, by federal law, to either effectuate a warranted arrest, or, without a warrant, find probable cause of deportation and likelihood of escape before a warrant can be obtained.
According to the ACLU, the stops across the Central District of California have continued even after last summer’s street raids ceased.
In response, the DHS insisted federal agents are engaging in protecting American citizens above all other considerations.
“Our agents are focused on protecting the American people — not entertaining performative outrage,” according to a statement from DHS. “Where is the media’s outrage for Angel families who lost a loved one to illegal alien crime?”
“Angel families” refers to the family members of those killed by undocumented individuals present in the United States.
Last month, plaintiffs attorneys filed documents in Los Angeles federal court allegedly showing text messages and body cam footage revealing agents using racial slurs to identify arrest targets. Immigration advocacy groups argued the evidence showed DHS agents chiefly went after “people who appear Latino and low-income or working-class,” according to a court filing.
City News Service contributed to this report.