The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dealt a stinging blow to the Trump administration\u2019s mass deportation project Friday night in a fiery opinion upholding a lower court\u2019s block on \u201croving patrols\u201d across much of Southern California.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf, as Defendants suggest, they are not conducting stops that lack reasonable suspicion, they can hardly claim to be irreparably harmed by an injunction aimed at preventing a subset of stops not supported by reasonable suspicion,\u201d the panel wrote.<\/p>\n
The ruling leaves in place a temporary restraining order barring masked and heavily armed agents from snatching people off the streets of Southern California without first establishing reasonable suspicion that they are in the U.S. illegally.<\/p>\n
Under the 4th Amendment, reasonable suspicion cannot be based solely on race, ethnicity, language, location or employment, either alone or in combination, U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong of Los Angeles wrote in her original order. <\/p>\n
9th Circuit Judges Marsha S. Berzon, Jennifer Sung and Ronald M. Gould agreed.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere is no predicate action that the individual plaintiffs would need to take, other than simply going about their lives, to potentially be subject to the challenged stops,\u201d the opinion said. <\/p>\n
Fourth Amendment injunctions are hard to win, experts say. Plaintiffs must show not only that they were hurt, but that they are likely to be hurt again in the same way in the future. <\/p>\n
One way to meet that test in court is to show the injury is the product of a government policy. Throughout a hearing Monday, the appellate judges repeatedly probed that question, roughly doubling the administration\u2019s time to respond in an effort to get an answer. <\/p>\n
\u201cAfter the district court injunction here, the secretary of Homeland Security said, \u2018We are going to continue doing what we\u2019re doing\u2019 \u2014 so that\u2019s not a policy?\u201d Berzon asked.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe policy is to follow the 4th Amendment and to require reasonable suspicion,\u201d said Deputy Assistant Atty. Gen. Yaakov Roth. <\/p>\n
Roth also rebuffed questions about a 3,000-arrests-per-day quota first touted by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller in May. <\/p>\n
In a memo to the panel on Wednesday, Roth clarified that \u201cno such goal\u201d had been established. <\/p>\n
The court rejected that argument Friday, writing that \u201cno official statement or express policy is required\u201d to prove one exists. <\/p>\n
\u201cAgents have conducted many stops in the Los Angeles area within a matter of weeks … some repeatedly in the same location,\u201d the opinion said, making the likelihood of future stops \u201cconsiderable.\u201d <\/p>\n
The ruling scolded the Department of Justice for \u201cmisreading\u201d the restraining order it sought to block, and said it \u201cmischaracterized\u201d Judge Frimpong\u2019s order. And it rejected the government\u2019s central claim that its law enforcement mandate would be \u201cchilled\u201d by the district court\u2019s order. <\/p>\n
\u201cDefendants have failed to establish that they will be \u2018chilled\u2019 from their enforcement efforts at all, let alone in a manner that constitutes the \u2018irreparable injury\u2019 required to support a stay pending appeal,\u201d the panel wrote. <\/p>\n
The case is still in its early phases, with hearings set for a preliminary injunction in September. But the \u201cshock and awe\u201d campaign of chaotic public arrests that first gripped Southern California on June 6 has all but ceased in the seven counties covered by Frimpong\u2019s order: Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe underlying 4th Amendment law is not complicated,\u201d said Mohammad Tajsar of the ACLU of Southern California \u2014 part of a coalition of civil rights groups and individual attorneys challenging cases of three immigrants and two U.S. citizens swept up in chaotic arrests. \u201cEven a more conservative panel would have been concerned about what the government is doing.\u201d<\/p>\n
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, whose city was among a number of Southern California municipalities allowed to join the lawsuit this week, celebrated the news at a hastily arranged press conference late Friday night at Getty House, her official residence in Windsor Square.<\/p>\n
The mayor strode out of her Tudor Revival-style home and toward the bank of waiting television cameras with a purposeful smile. <\/p>\n
\u201cThis is a great day for Los Angeles,\u201d she said, characterizing the court\u2019s decision as a victory upholding the Constitution and affirming the rule of law. <\/p>\n