Pedro Vasquez Perdomo, et al., v. Kristi Noem, et al., No. 2:25-cv-05605 (C.D. Cal., filed July 2, 2025)

Since June 6, 2025, the federal government has dramatically increased the presence and activity of immigration enforcement officers, including U.S. Border Patrol agents, in the Los Angeles area. As part of this increased activity and in response to growing pressure from the administration to satisfy arrest quotas, officers in roving patrols have relied on perceived race or ethnicity, rather than reasonable suspicion that the target was subject to removal, to conduct stops, warrantless home raids, and worksite operations.

On July 2, five individuals who were stopped or arrested during large-scale raids in the Los Angeles area, along with three membership organizations (Los Angeles Worker Center Network, United Farm Workers, the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights) and a legal services provider (Immigrant Defenders Law Center), filed a class action lawsuit calling to end unlawful stops and arrests, and for the protection of due process and access to counsel for people in immigration detention as a result of those arrests. Counsel for the plaintiffs filed two motions for temporary restraining orders (TRO): one seeking access to counsel for those individuals detained in a basement area of the Los Angeles Federal Building and a second motion to restrain government agents from conducting unlawful stops. The district court granted both motions, prohibiting the government from making stops based solely on the following four factors: apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent, presence at a particular location, or the type of work one does. The government appealed the orders to the Ninth Circuit, requesting a stay of the orders during appeal. The Ninth Circuit granted in part and denied in part the government’s motion for a stay pending appeal, finding the government failed to dispute that seizures requiring reasonable suspicion had occurred and holding that plaintiffs have standing to seek prospective injunctive relief. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that one provision of the TRO was impermissibly vague and stayed that one provision, but held that the district court did not err by entering a district-wide TRO prohibiting stops based on the four enumerated factors. Back at district court, plaintiffs filed motions for preliminary injunctions on the same issues, access to counsel and unconstitutional stops, as well as a motion for class certification. The government filed an application for a stay with the Supreme Court.

On September 8, 2025, the Supreme Court granted the government’s application for stay. In a concurring opinion, Justice Kavanaugh applied the Nken four-factor framework, noting a “fair prospect” that the Government would ultimately succeed on the merits. Justice Kavanaugh also noted the district court’s injunction accordingly constituted irreparable harm because it prevented the government from effectuating the Immigration and Nationality Act. Ultimately, Justice Kavanaugh concluded, “the balance of harms and equities in this case tips in favor of the Government.”

On July 29, 2025, several cities and the County of Los Angeles filed a complaint in intervention for declaratory and injunctive relief, seeking to enjoin defendants from continuing to conduct unlawful arrests in the area. On August 13, the intervenor cities and county filed a motion for preliminary injunction. On November 13, the District Court issued an order granting intervenors’ preliminary injunction motion.

On February 26, 2026, plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint alleging that the defendants’ unreasonable military-style tactics purposely target Latino communities in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Equal Protection guarantee and the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable seizure. Plaintiffs contend that the government’s intentional raids of locations based on race and apparent ethnicity violate equal protection and that the immigration agents’ use of handcuffs, confinement, use of force, and prolonged detention turn encounters into unlawful arrests.

Documents:

• Complaint
• Motion for Temporary Restraining Order on Access to Counsel
• Motion for Temporary Restraining Order on Unlawful Stops
• Order Granting Temporary Restraining Orders
• Ninth Circuit Government Emergency Motion to Stay
• Ninth Circuit Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion to Stay
• Ninth Circuit Government Reply in Support of Motion to Stay
• Ninth Circuit Order on Motion to Stay
• Motion for Preliminary Injunction on Unconstitutional Stops
• Motion for Preliminary Injunction on Access to Counsel
• Motion for Class Certification
• Intervenor Cities Complaint in Intervention
• Intervenor Cities First Amended Complaint
• Supreme Court Defendants’ Application for Stay
• Supreme Court Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Application for Stay
• Supreme Court Defendants’ Reply in Support of Application for Stay
• Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Injunction
• Supreme Court Grant of Application for Stay
• Motion to Amend Complaint
• Second Amended Complaint

Counsel: Law Offices of Stacy Tolchin ǀ ACLU Foundation of Southern California ǀ Public Counsel ǀ UC Irvine School of Law ǀ National Day Laborer Organizing Network ǀ American Civil Liberties Union Northern California ǀ ACLU Foundation of San Diego & Imperial Counties ǀ Hecker Fink LLP ǀ Martinez Aguilasocho Law, Inc. ǀ Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights ǀ Immigrant Defenders Law Center

Contact: Mayra Joaquin ǀ ACLU Foundation of Southern California ǀ mjoaquin@aclusocal.org

United Farm Workers, et al., v. Kristi Noem, et al., No. 1:25-cv-00246 (E.D. Cal., filed Feb. 26, 2025)

In January 2025, Border Patrol agents travelled more than 300 miles inland to Bakersfield, California and initiated “Operation Return to Sender,” a weeklong sweep of Kern County targeting primarily Latino neighborhoods. During the operation, Border Patrol stopped, detained, and arrested people of color or those who appeared to be farmworkers or day laborers, without reasonable suspicion that they were removable. Border Patrol violated federal law by conducting warrantless arrests without making individualized assessments of flight risk. Border Patrol transported people to El Centro Border Patrol station, detained them incommunicado, and coerced people into accepting voluntary departure.

On February 26, 2025, United Farm Workers and five individuals—including a U.S. citizen and a lawful permanent resident—sued on behalf of three proposed classes of people targeted by Border Patrol. Plaintiffs argued that Border Patrol’s enforcement actions violated the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1357, and immigration regulations because they arrested people without a warrant without probable cause of flight risk. Plaintiffs also brought claims under the Fourth Amendment, for suspicionless stops, and the Fifth Amendment, for coerced voluntary departure. Plaintiffs subsequently sought a preliminary injunction on behalf of two classes – Suspicionless Stop Class and Warrantless Arrest Class.

On April 29, 2025, the district court provisionally certified the Suspicionless Stop Class and the Warrantless Arrest Class. The court then granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining Border Patrol from: (a) making stops without reasonable suspicion the person is present in the United States in violation of U.S. immigration law and (b) making warrantless arrests without probable cause of flight risk. The court further ordered Border Patrol to (a) document arrests and provide that documentation to class counsel, (b) broadcast a policy regarding stops and arrests, and (c) train Border Patrol agents in the requirements of the policy and the preliminary injunction. Defendants have appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit and filed a motion to dismiss with the district court.

On October 6, 2025, the district court addressed the government’s motion to dismiss and discussion of the U.S. Supreme Court’s September 8, 2025 order in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, in which it raises serious questions as to Plaintiffs’ standing to pursue their claims for prospective injunctive relief. The court found its evaluation of the motion to dismiss—and by extension the motion to enforce—requires further briefing on this subject.  On January 25, 2026, the court denied the defendants’ motion to stay all proceedings. The court also concluded that it has no jurisdiction to consider some of the arguments raised in the pending motion to dismiss including arguments on standing, mootness, and arguments related to the issuance of musters pertaining to stops and arrests. However, the court found that it could proceed on the remaining arguments including the Fourth Amendment claims in a separate hearing on the remaining issues. A hearing on the motions to enforce and dismiss was held on February 5, 2026, where the court heard both sides.  

Oral argument before the Ninth Circuit will be held on April 22, 2026.

Counsel: ACLU Foundation of Northern California ǀ ACLU Foundation of Southern California ǀ ACLU Foundation of San Diego & Imperial Counties ǀ Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP

Contact: Bree Bernwanger ǀ ACLU Northern California ǀ bbernwanger@aclunc.org