A federal judge has rejected the government's attempt to dismiss two lawsuits challenging Immigration and Customs Enforcement patrols that swept across the Los Angeles region last summer, allowing a broad legal challenge to proceed that could significantly impact federal immigration enforcement practices.
U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong issued rulings Wednesday and Thursday denying motions to dismiss in two separate cases. One lawsuit was brought by individual plaintiffs and civil rights organizations, while another was filed by more than 20 cities and Los Angeles County. The plaintiffs allege ICE agents stopped and detained people without legal justification during the summer enforcement operations.
The lawsuits center on conditions at a processing facility known as B-18, where detainees were allegedly held for hours in substandard conditions. According to court filings, the facility lacks beds, showers and adequate medical facilities. Some detainees were reportedly denied access to attorneys during their detention.
The plaintiffs are seeking a court order that would halt the patrols and ensure all detained individuals have access to legal counsel. The cases represent one of the most comprehensive legal challenges to ICE enforcement practices in the region.
The federal government had moved to dismiss both lawsuits, arguing that plaintiffs presented only isolated incidents insufficient to support such a broad legal challenge. Government attorneys contended that the handful of alleged violations did not establish a pattern of constitutional violations that would warrant the sweeping relief sought by the plaintiffs.
The government also argued that the participating cities lacked legal standing to bring their claims. Federal attorneys maintained that any harm experienced by the cities stemmed from their own sanctuary policies rather than the ICE patrols themselves. Under this theory, the cities' decision to limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities created the conditions that led to any alleged injuries.
Frimpong, a Biden appointee, firmly rejected both government arguments in her detailed rulings. Addressing the isolated incidents claim, she wrote that "it is simply untrue that the plaintiffs have only alleged 'isolated incidents.'" The judge found that the actual allegations, when taken as true and read together, demonstrated that plaintiffs face a "real and immediate threat" of future detention without reasonable suspicion.
The judge emphasized that characterizing the allegations as describing only isolated incidents was "patently false," suggesting the government had mischaracterized the scope and pattern of alleged violations described in the complaints.
Regarding the cities' standing to sue, Frimpong rejected the administration's argument that sanctuary policies were the source of any harm. She found the cities had adequately demonstrated injuries that were concrete, traceable to the challenged conduct, and capable of being remedied by a favorable court decision. This three-part test represents the constitutional requirements for establishing standing in federal court.
The cities permitted to proceed with their lawsuit include some of the most populous municipalities in Southern California, spanning three counties. Los Angeles, Long Beach, Anaheim, Pasadena, Santa Ana, Santa Monica and Santa Barbara are among the jurisdictions that can continue pursuing their claims against the federal government.
Frimpong did dismiss certain individual claims as moot, specifically those challenging the detention of Vasquez Perdomo, Carlos Osorto and Villegas Molina, since these individuals have been released from custody. The mootness doctrine generally requires that courts only hear live controversies, making claims about past detention of released individuals potentially academic.
The cases have already produced significant interim relief for detainees. The court previously issued temporary restraining orders that impose limits on detention practices at the B-18 facility and require that detainees have access to legal counsel during their detention.
These rulings represent a significant victory for immigration advocates and civil rights organizations that have long criticized what they view as overly aggressive enforcement tactics. The decision allows the cases to proceed to discovery and potentially trial, where plaintiffs will have the opportunity to develop their claims with additional evidence.
For the federal government, the ruling represents a setback in its efforts to defend ICE enforcement practices from judicial scrutiny. The cases could ultimately result in court-ordered changes to how immigration enforcement is conducted in one of the nation's largest metropolitan areas.
The litigation now moves into the next phase of proceedings, where both sides will engage in discovery to develop their factual records. The ultimate resolution could have implications for immigration enforcement practices not only in Los Angeles but potentially in other jurisdictions with similar concerns about federal detention practices.
The cases highlight the ongoing tension between federal immigration enforcement priorities and local sanctuary policies, an issue that has generated significant litigation across the country during recent administrations of both parties.