Graphic by Dani Ramirez
Written by Steven Mynott
How did we get here?
There has been a sharp increase in Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids by agents in unmarked vehicles, wearing non-identifying clothing and masks to conceal their identities since President Donald Trump took office. Los Angeles and the surrounding area have emerged as the primary target. The Trump administration gave ICE a quota of 3,000 arrests per day, four times the previous average. In recent months, ICE has made arrests at construction sites, local businesses, agricultural fields, Home Depots, places of worship, hospitals and even court buildings.
The raids have been met with widespread condemnation from the community. Protests have erupted across California, led by family members of detainees and community activists alike.
On July 10, the largest ICE raid to date took place approximately two and a half miles from CI’s campus at a legal cannabis farm called Glass House Farms. The raid resulted in one death and hundreds of arrests, including the arrest of CI philosophy professor Johnathan Caravello.
Federal Judge in Los Angeles Put a Temporary Stop to ICE Raids
On July 11, a federal judge in Los Angeles, Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, granted a temporary restraining order that barred ICE and other federal agencies from detaining people unless there is reasonable suspicion that they are in violation of U.S. immigration law. The order came as a result of residents, workers and advocacy groups of Southern California suing the Department of Homeland Security in a case known as Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem. The lawsuit stated, “One of the clearest patterns that have emerged in the raids in Southern California over the past few weeks has been stops and interrogations based on nothing but broad profiles, including on the basis of apparent race and ethnicity.”
White House Border Czar Tom Homan told Fox News how he felt about the decision. “Look, people need to understand, ICE officers and Border Patrol, they don’t need probable cause to walk up to someone, briefly detain them, and question them,” Homan said. “They just need this: the totality of the circumstances, right? They just got through the observation, you know, get articulable facts based on the location, the occupation, their physical appearance, their actions.”
Included in the judge’s decision are orders that immigration enforcement shall not take race, ethnicity, language, accent, location or occupation into account as sole determining factors to form reasonable suspicion.
Homan expressed disagreement with the judges order during an interview with CNN, “I mean, she’s assuming that the officers don’t have reasonable suspicion. … Unless she’s in the officer’s mind, I don’t know how she can make that decision that, well, they’re not using reasonable suspicion. How does she know that? … I don’t know how she knows that, but I don’t think any federal judge can dictate immigration policy.”
Homan further clarified his position, “… let me be clear, physical description can’t be the sole factor to give you reasonable suspicion. As I said in the interview, it’s articulable facts with an S. So appearance can be just one. For instance, if someone has an MS-13 tattoo on their face that’d be one factor to add to other factors to raise reasonable suspicion.” He later went on to say, “So every officer, every situation is different, but I can tell you this: every ICE officer goes through fourth amendment training every six months and reminded what their authorities are for arrest, detention and questioning. So the officers are very well trained.”
Homan concluded the CNN interview by sharing his desire to appeal the decision, “I look forward to litigation. I think we will win this on appeal. … The administration is never going against the judge’s order. We’ll litigate it, we’ll win it, then we’ll get back to doing what we’re doing.”
Supreme Court Blocked Lower Court’s Temporary Restraining Order
In a 6-3 decision on Sept. 8, the U.S. The Supreme Court granted an emergency request from the Trump administration to halt the LA judge’s restraining order, effectively allowing ICE to continue practices that the lower court determined to be racially discriminatory. The Supreme Court based its decision on grounds of legal standing and the fourth amendment, the amendment of the constitution that protects people from illegal search and seizure.
Relating to the decision that plaintiffs in this case lack standing, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote this in his concurring opinion: “plaintiffs have no good basis to believe that law enforcement will unlawfully stop them in the future based on the prohibited factors—and certainly no good basis for believing that any stop of the plaintiffs is imminent.”
On the part of the decision that ICE’s actions do not violate the fourth amendment, Kavanaugh wrote, “Whether an officer has reasonable suspicion depends on the totality of the circumstances. … Here, those circumstances include: that there is an extremely high number and percentage of illegal immigrants in the Los Angeles area; that those individuals tend to gather in certain locations to seek daily work; that those individuals often work in certain kinds of jobs, such as day labor, landscaping, agriculture, and construction, that do not require paperwork and are therefore especially attractive to illegal immigrants; and that many of those illegally in the Los Angeles area come from Mexico or Central America and do not speak much English. … To be clear, apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion; under this Court’s case law regarding immigration stops, however, it can be a ‘relevant factor’ when considered along with other salient factors.”
In her dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote this in regard to the fourth amendment: “The Government, and now the concurrence, has all but declared that all Latinos, U. S. citizens or not, who work low wage jobs are fair game to be seized at any time, taken away from work, and held until they provide proof of their legal status to the agents’ satisfaction.” Later in her dissent, she writes, “The Fourth Amendment thus prohibits exactly what the Government is attempting to do here: seize individuals based solely on a set of facts that ‘describe(s) a very large category of presumably innocent’ people.”
Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion also argued against the Court’s decision that plaintiffs lacked standing, “In their view, the plaintiffs lack standing to seek prospective injunctive relief because they have … failed to establish a ‘real and immediate threat of repeated injury.’” However, she points out, “The plaintiffs are also almost certain to return to the location in which they were seized because they were seized while either at work or on their way to work. The record, including the Government’s own declarations, further makes clear that a given location is likely to be targeted again and again.”
The named plaintiff in the case, Pedro Vasquez Perdomo, had this to say, “When ICE grabbed me, they never showed a warrant or explained why. I was treated like I didn’t matter–locked up, cold, hungry, and without a lawyer. Now, the Supreme Court says that’s okay? That’s not justice. That’s racism with a badge.”
What if You Are Stopped by ICE?
If you are stopped by ICE, the most important thing you can do is remain calm. Remember that you have the right to remain silent. Do not obstruct agents, do not run, do not argue and do not give false information. If ICE is at your home, they cannot enter unless they have a warrant signed by a judge. Just to be clear: an ICE administrative arrest warrant is not signed by a judge; ICE must have a judicial warrant signed by a judge in order to legally enter your home. You do not have to open the door for immigration agents without a judicial warrant. If you must speak to them, it is safer to do so through a closed door. If you believe you may be arrested, make emergency plans: memorize important phone numbers and make accommodations for children in your care.
