Federal Judge Prohibits ICE from Detaining People Based on Latino Appearance in California

A new court order limits immigration operations in seven Southern California counties, following the revelation of messages and recordings from federal agents.

A federal judge ordered U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to stop detaining people based solely on their Latino appearance and other general factors in California.

– Why it matters: The ruling requires individualized reasonable suspicion for immigration arrests and seeks to prevent physical appearance from substituting for evidence.

ICE Cannot Justify Detentions Solely Based on Latino Appearance in California

Federal judge blocks ICE from making racially discriminatory stops in Southern California https://t.co/yq04rNhwvo

— Los Angeles Times (@latimes) October 29, 2026

Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong granted a new preliminary injunction after examining evidence related to immigration operations in Southern California.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the magistrate reviewed body camera footage and messages exchanged between federal agents during their operations.

YOU MAY BE INTERESTED: ICE Agent Points Gun at Neighbor During Arrest in Los Angeles

The records included derogatory expressions against Latino and migrant individuals, which reinforced judicial questions about possible racial profiling practices.

The judge also questioned the federal government's training in light of the documented behaviors during the litigation.

– What changes: Agents must have specific reasons to suspect an individual, not based solely on their appearance, language, or job.

In Which California Counties Does the Order Against ICE Apply?

A California state judge issued an order prohibiting immigration agents from detaining people for questioning based solely on racial stereotypes.
https://t.co/BgO1TlZVLx

— EFE Noticias (@EFEnoticias) October 29, 2026

The measure covers the Central District of California, a federal jurisdiction that includes seven counties in Southern and Central California.

– Affected areas: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo.

The resolution establishes exceptions for ports of entry, border checkpoints, and other locations considered legally equivalent to the border.

This means that the order does not eliminate ICE's immigration powers but sets limits on how certain detentions can be justified.

Individualized reasonable suspicion requires specific circumstances related to each person, rather than general characteristics shared by a community.

ICE Agents' Messages Were Key to the Judge's Decision

The lawsuit was filed by organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Southern California and Public Counsel.

During the process, Frimpong demanded that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) hand over communications from more than 800 immigration agents.

According to The Hill, the magistrate declared the DHS in contempt for delaying the delivery and set a daily fine of $500.

The DHS ultimately paid $3,500 for the delay in complying with the court order to deliver information.

Subsequently obtained communications were among the materials used to question the immigration practices denounced by the organizations.

The Judge Had Already Limited Immigration Arrests Without a Judicial Order

In September, Frimpong also restricted certain immigration arrests without a judicial order in the same seven counties in California.

The magistrate required documenting individual reasons to consider that a person might flee before agents could obtain an order.

The plaintiff's lawyers reviewed 113 arrests and found that 89 lacked specific risk-of-flight assessments or presented very similar justifications.

One limitation is that irregular immigration status alone does not demonstrate that a person intends to flee.

The new resolution imposes restrictions on detentions based on racial or occupational characteristics, without preventing operations on legal grounds.

For now, the protection is limited to the specified jurisdiction and does not constitute a national ban on immigration detentions.

Sources: El País, Efe