Can courts stop Trump’s mass immigration arrests around L.A.?

There are many legal difficulties in President Trump’s immigration screening in California that led to at least 3,000 arrests.

However, a lawsuit has the potential to change politics significantly.

Decision

The Coalition of Civil Rights Groups and Special Lawyers has sued the federal government and has been sweeping three immigrants and two US citizens in chaotic arrests that have led to widespread protests since the beginning of June.

On Friday, the US Regional Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, after finding enough evidence that the federal agents in Southland, a appointment of President Biden, used the race to use a racial profile to make immigration arrests after finding sufficient evidence that a person has used the work or position of a person.

Frimpong decided that using race, ethnic origin, language, accent, position or employment as an excuse for immigration sanction was banned by the 4th change that protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.

The order includes Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo districts.

The judge also ordered that everyone who was detained in an detention facility in the city center, known as the B-18, to give a 24-hour access and a secret telephone line.

On Monday, the administration asked a Federal Court of Appeal to remain the judge’s order to prevent wick patrols and allowed the seven to continue raids in California district.

“A regional judge’s federal immigration sanctions alone ‘operations’ operations ‘restructuring’ can not be defended,” he said. “This judicial inheritance cannot be allowed to stop.”

What do experts say

Considering the current political climate, legal experts say it is difficult to say how successful the federal government would be in the temporary order.

“This is different from many other Trump cases because the Dean of the Law Faculty Dean of the Law Faculty, because the law is very clear in the finding by the regional court. “So if you follow the basic legal principles, it is very weak for appeal for the government, but it is very difficult to predict what will happen because everything is very ideological.”

In the past, legal academics say it would be extremely rare to give a focus on such an order. However, the latest events show that they are not outside the possibility.

The courts supported Trump’s immigration policies in other cases.

• In June, the US Supreme Court decided to allow the federal government to deport to “third countries” even if the convicted criminals have not established in advance with these countries.
• The same month decided to limit the ability of federal judges to give orders throughout the country that prevented the policies of the president, which often controls the power of administrator.
• In June, the 9th US Court of Appeals decided to quit troops in Los Angeles in the hands of the Trump administration, while California’s objections were sued in the Federal court, while the President’s authority to place the army in American cities – found it wide, although it was not “reviewed”. California had sued against the deployment.

Ahilan Arulantham, the Professor of Application of the Immigration Law and Policy Center at UCLA Law Faculty, said that there was no easy situation for the government.

“I think it’s something that makes this case a little more difficult for the government than other shadow Docet cases for the government, it really affects citizens in a really significant way,” he said. “They do not know beforehand when they arrive at someone, if they are not a citizen or citizen or whether they are legally present.”

What’s next?

Frimpong decision is now in appeal.

In their complaints, the plaintiffs claimed that immigrant agents squeezed into a corner without reasoning that they had violated immigration laws in home depot parking lots, car wash and bus stops in Southern California. They claim that agents do not describe themselves as needed in accordance with federal laws, and made illegal arrests without warrants.

Government lawyers claimed that in their movements, ethnicity may be a factor that supports reasonable suspicion under appropriate conditions – for example, if the agents are moving on such a clue, even if they are not relevant in other conditions, ”.

Lawyers said that the Spanish speech in the movement, in a certain place or the person’s work, can at least contribute to reasonable suspicion under some conditions ”.

Government lawyers, Frimpong’s precautionary measure, said it was the first step to take immigration practices under the judicial monitor and that it was “cannot be defended at all levels”. They asked the Supreme Court to pause the order while appeal.

The government also objected to another precautionary measure in the eastern region of California, after stopping and arresting dozens of farm workers and workers, including the US citizen during a day operation in the Central Valley of the border patrol agents in January.

This case is likely to be heard later this year.