A federal judge in Los Angeles signaled Thursday that she is prepared to sharply limit how immigration agents carry out street arrests across the region, a move that could reshape the tactics driving the Trump administration’s mass deportation push in Southern California.
U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong indicated she is inclined to order agents to stop making warrantless arrests unless they first determine, individually, that a person is both likely undocumented and likely to flee before a warrant could be obtained. That standard has been required under federal law since 1946, but attorneys representing immigrants swept up in recent raids argue agents have been ignoring it altogether.
If finalized, the ruling would rank among the most consequential yet in a sprawling lawsuit challenging immigration enforcement tactics in the Los Angeles area, home to roughly 19 million people. It would force agents to fundamentally change how they approach arrests, requiring them to weigh a person’s ties to the community — including employment, housing and family — before detaining someone without a warrant.
Court records and body-camera footage cited in the case describe a pattern in which supervisors told agents to simply “go out and start detaining people,” resulting in agents targeting individuals with no knowledge of their immigration history. Many of those swept up were confronted at car washes, bus stops and other public places, with attorneys alleging agents relied on the appearance of being Latino as their main basis for stopping people.
Last month, attorneys for the plaintiffs submitted text messages and body-camera recordings showing federal agents using racist language to describe potential targets during Los Angeles-area operations, evidence they say reinforces claims that agents were profiling people based on race rather than any individualized suspicion.
Should Thursday’s tentative ruling be made permanent, Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong would become at least the fifth federal judge nationally to block the administration’s warrantless arrest practices, joining courts in Oregon, Colorado and Washington, D.C. In at least two of those cases, judges found that agents continued using the disputed tactics even after being ordered to stop.
This is not the first time the judge has intervened in the case. In July 2025, shortly after the raids began, she issued an order barring agents from detaining people based on factors such as apparent race, speaking Spanish or type of clothing worn. The U.S. Supreme Court later put that order on hold. Thursday’s ruling takes a different approach — rather than dictating who agents can stop, it would require them to document specific evidence of flight risk before making a warrantless arrest.
The latest ruling stems from a motion filed by attorneys representing immigrants detained during the Los Angeles raids, which began under then-Border Patrol commander Gregory Bovino and drew national attention for their scale. Though public scrutiny has faded somewhat, the operations have continued into 2026 with less visibility.
Attorneys with the American Civil Liberties Union and Public Counsel, among other organizations, reviewed 113 arrest reports submitted as evidence and found that nearly 80% contained no genuine assessment of flight risk, relying instead on boilerplate language.
In several of those reports, agents claimed a person was likely to flee because they supposedly ran from law enforcement, lived in a so-called sanctuary state, ignored commands, or simply because of their “unlawful presence in the United States.”
In multiple instances, the government’s own body-camera footage appeared to contradict the written arrest reports. In one case, an agent wrote that a man was “running in the opposite direction” during a warehouse raid in Pomona. Body-camera video, however, shows the man was not running and had significant mobility limitations, according to court filings.
In another example, an agent reported that a man was “fleeing” during an August 2025 raid at a Home Depot in the Westlake area. Video instead shows the man walking toward the agent while looking at his phone.
Federal officials have defended the warrantless arrests in sworn statements. A Border Patrol supervisor who oversaw the arrest of three men detained at a Pasadena bus stop testified that if a person “voluntarily admits” to being in the country illegally, that alone is sufficient grounds for an arrest without a warrant.
Just Walking the Dogs
As part of their motion, attorneys for the detained immigrants submitted hundreds of additional pieces of evidence, including previously unreleased body-camera footage, internal text messages and formal directives from ICE headquarters.
One video shows a group of federal agents moving through a parking lot before detaining a man walking two small, barking dogs. A woman nearby can be heard trying to explain that the man does have legal documentation — he simply didn’t have it with him because he had only stepped out to walk his dogs. An agent responds that he doesn’t understand. Another tells her, “It’s the law, ma’am,” and suggests she file a complaint with U.S. Border Patrol if she disagrees.
At no point in the footage do agents ask the man about his address, his job or whether he has family in the area — the kind of questions courts have said are required before someone can be arrested without a warrant.
Citing newly disclosed evidence, attorneys for the plaintiffs also argued that immigration officials have deliberately created poor conditions inside detention facilities to pressure detainees into agreeing to voluntary deportation.
One man, identified in a court declaration only by the initials DVV, said that while held at the ICE Processing Center in Adelanto, in San Bernardino County, he was repeatedly pressured to sign a document he did not understand.
“I asked to see the form. The second time, the agents took me to a meeting room where a man told me they would force me to sign if I refused,” DVV wrote in a sworn declaration filed with the court. “When I refused, they brought in a bigger man who said he would make me sign. It felt like they were trying to intimidate me.”
Other evidence submitted in the case points to lasting psychological harm. In one declaration, a tamale vendor who has lived in the United States for more than 30 years described the toll of being held for five months at Adelanto.
“I want to be strong and keep moving forward, but it’s very hard for me. I feel an overwhelming sadness. I’m not the same man I was before my detention. I feel like a stranger to myself. Sometimes I can’t hold back my emotions and I cry for a long time. At night, I can’t sleep,” he wrote.
Original source: CalMatters
