Trump administration ordered to halt indiscriminate immigration stops in California over racial profiling concerns
Judge Maame E Frimpong on Friday blocked the administration from using what has been called unconstitutional tactics in raids after a lawsuit was filed by immigrant advocacy groups last week.
The lawsuit in the US district court has accused the administration of systematically targeting brown-skinned people in southern California during its ongoing immigration crackdown. The plaintiffs include three detained immigrants and two US citizens, one who was held despite showing agents his identification.
The order also applies to Ventura county, where busloads of workers were detained on Thursday while the court hearing was under way after federal agents descended on a cannabis farm, leading to clashes with protesters and multiple injuries.
Frimpong also issued a separate order barring the federal government from restricting attorney access at a Los Angeles immigration detention facility.
The judge issued the emergency orders, which are a temporary measure while the lawsuit proceeds, the day after a hearing during which advocacy groups argued that the government was violating the fourth and fifth amendments of the constitution.
She wrote in the order there was a 'mountain of evidence' presented in the case that the federal government was committing the violations they were being accused of.
Representing the government, attorney Sean Skedzielewski said there was no evidence that federal immigration agents considered race in their arrests, and that they only considered appearance as part of the 'totality of the circumstances', including prior surveillance and interactions with people in the field.
In some cases, they also operated off 'targeted, individualized packages', he said.
Department of Homeland Security assistant secretary Tricia McLaughlin wrote in an email that 'any claims that individuals have been 'targeted' by law enforcement because of their skin color are disgusting and categorically FALSE'.
McLaughlin said 'enforcement operations are highly targeted, and officers do their due diligence' before making arrests.
Advocates accuse immigration officials of detaining someone based on their race, carrying out warrantless arrests and denying detainees access to legal counsel at a holding facility in downtown LA.
According to the American Civil Liberties Union, the recent wave of immigration enforcement has been driven by an 'arbitrary arrest quota' and based on 'broad stereotypes based on race or ethnicity'.
ACLU attorney Mohammad Tajsar said Brian Gavidia, one of the US citizens who was detained, was 'physically assaulted … for no other reason than he was Latino and working at a tow yard in a predominantly Latin American neighborhood'.
Friday's order will prevent the government from solely using apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone's occupation as the basis for reasonable suspicion to stop someone.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
16 minutes ago
- The Independent
The Trump administration's latest immigration target: Kids aged 11 and under
A far cry from the 'bad, hard criminals' Donald Trump said his undocumented immigrants crackdown would focus on, record-breaking numbers of deportation orders have been issued to young immigrant children under the Trump administration, The Independent can reveal. More kids aged 11 or under — 8,317 — received a removal order from an immigration court in April than any other month in over 35 years of data collection, according to court data from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC). Since Trump's inauguration in January, judges have ordered removals for over 53,000 immigrant minors. Those children are predominantly elementary school age or younger. Some 15,000 children were aged under four years old, and 20,000 of them were children aged four to eleven. Teenagers are also experiencing climbing deportations, with 17,000 seeing a court-ordered removal, although that's lower than their all-time peak in 2020 under the first Trump administration. Some of these children being deported are unaccompanied minors, who do not have a legal guardian in the US; though the exact number is unclear, since immigration authorities stopped recording this data years ago. Children, including toddlers, are required to show up at immigration hearings to be questioned by a judge – and many, unsurprisingly, do not understand what is happening nor the gravity of their situation. In one case, a source tells the Independent, a young child from Haiti had his immigration court hearing remotely in front of a screen. The child, who had a learning disability, was fidgeting and running around the room. Finally, he pointed at the judge on the screen and asked – 'Who's that?' In other cases, children are being arrested by ICE with their families, but held in detention and deported separately. 'A six year old child was picked up [by ICE] with his father, separated from his dad, and parked in custody for four months before being deported,' a lawyer familiar with children's immigration cases told the Independent. The child was unable to receive legal assistance, as he was deported while federal legal funding had been cut. The deportation outcome rate for immigrant children under age 11 is higher than in any other age group, latest figures show, and has jumped significantly since Trump came into office. What's more, under-18s account for one in four (26 percent) of all deportations ordered in immigration court since January – despite the fact that minors make up just 11 percent of the undocumented population. The vast majority (76 percent) of children under 11 do not have legal representation, and cases are being sped through the system, according to sources close to the courts. 'This is pumping up the deportation numbers on the back of kids – their rights to safety and due process are not respected,' the immigration lawyer told the Independent. 'This is about striking fear in the hearts of everybody. It's demonstrable cruelty in the name of so-called deterrence.' Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin responded to the Independent: 'Accusations that ICE is 'targeting' children are FALSE and an attempt to demonize law enforcement. ICE does not 'target' children nor does it deport children. Rather than separate families, ICE asks mothers if they want to be removed with their children or if the child should be placed with someone safe the parent designates.' Highest-ever deportations for young children Immigration crackdowns across the country have been almost indiscriminate, with new data revealing that ICE is arresting more non-criminals than ever. The number of people who have been deported under the Trump administration is murky; ICE has not disclosed official figures since January, and available immigration court data is not comprehensive, with age not recorded in 13 percent of cases. But analysis of court data reveals that children have been increasingly, and disproportionately, marked for deportation in recent months. Under the Trump administration, immigration courts have quickly ramped up deportation rates. Around two thirds (68 percent) of all immigration court proceedings ended in deportation in May, compared to 39 percent in January. But for children under 11, the removal rate is even higher, at 75 percent in May; and 78 percent for kids under 4 years old, both substantially higher than the 45 percent seen on average for young kids in January. This suggests that children are being disproportionately targeted for deportations under this administration, overrepresented by 2.3 times more than their proportion of the illegal immigrant population, our analysis shows. 'What we're seeing right now is basically a grist mill in immigration court, just scooting kids through the process as quickly as possible,' the lawyer, who asked to remain anonymous, told the Independent. At the same time, children facing immigration court are more vulnerable and less protected than ever. In spite of this, the Trump administration has been fighting to cancel funding which provides legal aid for unaccompanied immigrant children. The government first issued a stop-work order in February, and cancelled federal contracts in March. In April the federal district court ordered the Trump administration to restore funding, saying it is congressionally mandated under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA). Legal assistance programs told the Independent that they had since been re-contracted; but remain on 'pins and needles' as the government appeals the court ruling, and Trump's Big Beautiful Bill makes it harder and more expensive to sue against his policies. Rocket dockets and separating families In the meantime, children are being put on expedited paths through immigration court, known as 'rocket dockets', according to the immigration lawyer. Many of these cases are going through in just two weeks from start to finish – which leaves little-to-no room for a child to prepare the necessary documents and arguments. 'Of course, a child is going to file a case that's not completely fleshed out in all the legal arguments, because they don't understand the legal argument,' the lawyer told the Independent. 'This is also really damaging for trafficking victims. Kids who have experienced severe trauma need the time to have their nervous system relax, to understand that they're safe, to share some of the most sensitive details about their cases.' These tactics evoke the family separation policy, employed in 2018 under the first Trump administration, which forcibly kept parents and children apart when detained at the border – with as many as 1,360 families never reunited, according to Human Rights Watch. 'It is seen as against the due process rights of a child to be systematically separated from their parent or legal guardian,' the lawyer explained. 'What's clear is that they are sidestepping the legal settlement to protect children from these cruel techniques."
The Independent
16 minutes ago
- The Independent
20 states sue the Trump admin for cutting disaster prevention money
A coalition of 20 US states, predominantly led by Democrats, has launched a legal challenge against the Trump administration, seeking to reinstate a multi-billion-dollar grant programme crucial for infrastructure upgrades designed to mitigate natural disasters. The lawsuit, filed in Boston federal court, contends that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) acted unlawfully by cancelling the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) programme in April, despite its prior approval and funding by Congress. The BRIC programme, established in 2018, was designed to cover up to 75 per cent of infrastructure project costs, or 90 per cent in rural areas, aimed at protecting communities from natural catastrophes. Over the past four years, FEMA had allocated approximately \$4.5 billion in grants for nearly 2,000 projects, many benefiting coastal states, funding initiatives from evacuation shelters to flood walls and improvements to roads and bridges. The administration, however, cited the programme as wasteful, ineffective, and politicised when announcing its termination. "By unilaterally shutting down FEMA's flagship pre-disaster mitigation program, Defendants have acted unlawfully and violated core separation of powers principles," the states, spearheaded by Washington and Massachusetts, asserted in their filing. Neither FEMA nor the US Department of Homeland Security immediately responded to requests for comment regarding the lawsuit. The legal action comes as FEMA faces heightened scrutiny following its response to deadly floods in Texas earlier this month, which claimed over 130 lives. This event has intensified focus on the administration's broader efforts to reduce the agency's scope or even abolish it. A bipartisan group of lawmakers had previously urged FEMA in May to reinstate the grants, emphasising their particular importance for rural and tribal communities, and called for collaboration with Congress to enhance the programme's efficiency. The states further argue that Congress designated disaster mitigation as a core function of FEMA, asserting that the US Constitution and federal law prohibit the Trump administration from altering the agency's mission without legislative input. They also allege that Cameron Hamilton and his successor, David Richardson, who served as acting directors of FEMA when the programme was terminated, were not properly appointed and therefore lacked the authority to cancel it. The states are now seeking a preliminary injunction to compel the programme's reinstatement while the case proceeds, marking the latest in a series of challenges by states against the Trump administration's approach to disaster funding. Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell, a Democrat, underscored the critical need for federal funding in light of the recent Texas floods. "By abruptly and unlawfully shutting down the BRIC program, this administration is abandoning states and local communities that rely on federal funding to protect their residents and, in the event of disaster, save lives," she stated.
The Independent
16 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump administration deported ‘monsters' to tiny African country in deal catching diplomats by surprise
Donald Trump's administration has resumed a policy of deporting immigrant detainees to so-called third countries, starting with the tiny African nation of Eswatini. But Tuesday's removals of five detained immigrants from the United States to the tiny African nation of Eswatini surprised diplomats who only heard about the removal from social media, The Independent has learned Government officials there say they intend to send those detainees back to their countries of origin — which the Trump administration says can't happen. Eswatini's government is now working with the United Nations to send the men — who originally hail from Cuba, Jamaica, Laos, Vietnam and Yemen — back to their home countries, despite the Department of Homeland Security labelling them 'depraved monsters' who are 'so uniquely barbaric' that those countries won't accept them. The men allegedly have criminal convictions on murder, sexual assault and robbery charges, among others, according to the Department of Homeland Security. Two men received 20-year prison sentences, and another received a prison sentence of 25 years, according to the agency. But the Eswatini government says the men 'will be repatriated to their respective countries' and that the United Nations International Organization for Migration is working with Eswatini to 'facilitate the transit of these inmates to their countries of origin.' It remains unclear whether those men will remain incarcerated in Eswatini despite their lengthy prison sentences, or if they will walk free once they are no longer in the government's custody or the custody of their home countries. Eswatini's acting government spokesperson Thabile Mdluli said the men have been sent to correctional facilities within isolated units 'where similar offenders are kept.' 'As a responsible member of the global community, the Kingdom of Eswatini adheres to international agreements and diplomatic protocols regarding the repatriation of individuals, ensuring that due process and respect for human rights is followed,' Mdluli said. A representative from the Embassy of Eswatini in Washington, D.C., told The Independent that officials at the embassy had only learned about the removal flight from social media posts. The State Department and Homeland Security did not contact the embassy about the removal, a representative said. 'We didn't even know we were on the list' for third-country removals, she added. The embassy has requested information about the deportees from Eswatini's government. Homeland Security's social media posts included mug shots of the men and what officials said are their criminal records and sentences. The men were not named. The Independent has requested additional comment from Homeland Security, the State Department and the U.S. embassy in Eswatini. Eswatini, formerly known as Swaziland, is a land-locked nation of roughly 1.2 million people, bordered by South Africa on virtually all sides and by the southern tip of Mozambique to the east. Its government is the last absolute monarchy on the continent; King Mswati III has ruled over the nation for nearly 40 years, and political parties are prohibited from running in elections for Eswatini's House of Assembly and Senate. Dozens were killed in pro-democracy uprisings in 2021, and political dissent in the country has been crushed, according to advocacy groups. The government has failed to investigate extrajudicial killings, journalists and dissidents face threats of arbitrary arrests and detentions, and detainees there were 'subjected to torture and other ill-treatment,' according to Amnesty International. The State Department tells travelers to 'exercise increased caution in Eswatini due to crime and civil unrest.' The Eswatini removal flight appears to be the first third-country deportation after Immigration and Customs Enforcement told officials that immigrants can be deported from the United States to countries other than their own with as little as six hours' notice — or no notice at all. The memo from ICE acting director Todd Lyons follows a recent Supreme Court decision that opens the door for officials to send deportees to countries where they do not have citizenship, family or any other connections. Immigrants sent to countries where foreign officials have not provided the United States with 'diplomatic assurances' that they won't face torture or human rights abuses must be provided 24 hours' notice, the memo says. Or, in 'exigent' circumstances, only six hours' notice. Countries that do provide those 'assurances' could be deported without any advance notice, according to the memo. If the State Department believes those assurances are 'credible,' then ICE may deport someone to that country 'without the need for further procedures.' In March, lawyers for a group of immigrants filed a lawsuit arguing that the government violated federal law by failing to let them challenge their removal to countries where they could be harmed or killed. Massachusetts District Judge Brian Murphy ordered the government to give those men 'meaningful' notice and opportunity to challenge their deportation orders. But on June 23, the Supreme Court's conservative majority blocked the judge's decision, giving the administration the greenlight to send those men to war-torn South Sudan. South Sudan's government said the men, all of whom were convicted of crimes in the United States, were 'under the care of the relevant authorities' but did not disclose their whereabouts, condition or what will happen to them. None of their family members have heard from them since they arrived there, according to attorneys. The administration is reportedly negotiating similar deportation plans with several other countries. Since taking office, the Trump administration has held hundreds of immigrants at the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and deported dozens of alleged Venezuelan gang members to a brutal maximum-security prison in El Salvador, marking the administration's first such arrangement of third-country removals. Court documents revealed El Salvador's government told the United Nations that deportees held inside that country are the responsibility of the U.S. government — contradicting statements from Trump administration officials. A group hired by the U.N. has also accused the administration of state-sponsored 'enforced disappearances.'
