Federal Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong issued a temporary restraining order blocking immigration raids in Los Angeles and other California counties. The ruling came after the ACLU sued the Trump administration, claiming unconstitutional stops based on race and language.
Key Facts:
- Judge Frimpong halted immigration raids in L.A. and other areas, citing Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations.
- The ACLU sued the Trump administration, alleging racial profiling and illegal detentions by immigration agents.
- The court found agents used race, language, and location as grounds for stops without reasonable suspicion.
- Frimpong, a Biden appointee, issued two temporary restraining orders affecting ICE and DHS operations in the region.
- Over 2,700 arrests have been made by ICE and CBP in the L.A. area since early June.
The Rest of The Story:
The American Civil Liberties Union and several California cities, including Los Angeles, sued the Trump administration over alleged unconstitutional immigration enforcement tactics.
They argued that federal agents were conducting raids and detentions without proper legal justification, often targeting individuals based on ethnicity or language.
Judge Frimpong agreed with the plaintiffs and ordered a pause in the raids.
She ruled that federal agents violated the Fourth Amendment by making “detentive stops” without reasonable suspicion and the Fifth Amendment by denying access to legal counsel.
“What the federal government would have this Court believe—in the face of a mountain of evidence presented in this case—is that none of this is actually happening,” she wrote.
The case revolves in part around Brian Gavidia, a Montebello resident who was detained by federal agents even after proving he was a U.S. citizen.
“They took away my phone,” he told reporters.
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and California Governor Gavin Newsom celebrated the ruling as a victory for civil rights.
The lawsuit claims the ICE operations have cost local governments tens of millions in lost tax revenue and law enforcement expenses.
As of now, the Department of Justice has not indicated whether it will appeal the judge’s decision.
BREAKING: @FoxNews has learned that LA federal judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong (Biden appointee), has written a tentative decision that sides w/ the ACLU & plaintiffs over the Trump administration & will potentially block DHS from carrying out arrests at Home Depots, car… pic.twitter.com/ReaEvWdjCA
— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) July 10, 2025
Commentary:
This ruling is a glaring example of judicial overreach.
One federal judge should not have the power to override nationwide immigration enforcement based on subjective interpretation of constitutional rights—especially when public safety and national security are at stake.
Judge Frimpong’s ruling reflects a growing trend among activist judges who treat their personal views as legal doctrine.
By effectively tying the hands of federal agents, she’s substituting her opinion for decades of established law and policy.
The Constitution does not give state or local officials the authority to dictate how immigration law is enforced.
Nor should it shield illegal activity from consequences simply because a judge dislikes the enforcement strategy.
The Trump administration has made it clear that agents are abiding by legal standards.
U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli affirmed that agents have “never detained individuals without proper legal justification” and will continue to follow the Constitution.
Congress should act immediately to rein in judges who routinely obstruct lawful policy.
One proposal: any judge reversed on appeal three or more times within a set period should be automatically removed from the bench.
This would help restore accountability and discourage rogue rulings untethered from constitutional law.
Most importantly, this decision must be reversed on appeal—today.
The federal government cannot allow isolated courtrooms to dictate policy nationwide through temporary injunctions driven by political bias.
Immigration law must be enforced consistently across all 50 states.
The Bottom Line:
A single judge’s ruling has paused vital immigration enforcement in California, citing alleged constitutional violations.
But her decision relies more on ideological preference than legal necessity.
The Trump administration must swiftly appeal this ruling—and Congress should impose real consequences for activist judges who overstep their authority.
\
Read Next
* Trump Amin Ending Taxpayer Funded Gravy Train For Illegal Aliens In Postsecondary Education
* Federal Aid for Americans Only: HHS Dismantles Backdoor Benefits for Illegals
* Ambassador Who Held Her Head in Disgust During Trump Meeting Just Lost Her Job
* DNC Chair Gives Insane Answer When Asked Why Mamdami Didn’t Condemn Phrase ‘Globalize The Intifada’
* Judge Bypasses SCOTUS Limits, Grants Sweeping Injunction Against Trump Birthright Citizenship Order
