U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong issued a preliminary injunction blocking federal immigration officers from making warrantless civil arrests in Southern California unless they determine the arrestee is likely to escape. The ruling, stemming from an ACLU lawsuit, requires agents to document specific pre-arrest facts showing escape risk, declaring that unlawful presence alone does not justify a warrantless arrest. The Department of Homeland Security defended its authority, citing Supreme Court precedent.
Southern California warrantless arrest injunction
- ▪U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong denied the federal government's request to stay or delay the preliminary injunction restricting warrantless civil immigration arrests.
- ▪The preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong applies to the Central District of California, which includes Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo counties.
- ▪Federal judges in Portland, Colorado, Washington, D.C., and the Eastern District of California have previously blocked similar warrantless immigration arrest practices.
- ▪U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong issued a preliminary injunction on September 2, 2026, unsealed on September 16, 2026, blocking federal immigration officers from making warrantless civil arrests in Southern California unless they determine the arrestee is likely to escape.
Escape likelihood documentation requirements
- ▪U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong ruled that a person's unlawful presence in the United States is not sufficient on its own to conclude that the person is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained.
- ▪U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong ordered the federal government to thoroughly document specific, pre-arrest facts showing probable cause that a person is likely to escape before making a warrantless civil immigration arrest.
- ▪Department of Justice attorney Daniel Mummolo argued during a court hearing that there is no statutory requirement for immigration officers to document their escape risk assessments.
- ▪U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong cited video evidence showing immigration officers' written escape risk justifications contradicted actual events, such as claiming a car wash worker fled when video showed him standing still.
ACLU immigration enforcement lawsuit
- ▪The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, Public Counsel, and Los Angeles immigrant advocacy groups filed the lawsuit in late 2025 following a surge of immigration enforcement in the region.
- ▪U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong previously held the Department of Homeland Security in contempt for delaying the release of digital communications from over 800 immigration agents' cellphones.
- ▪Plaintiffs' lawyers argued that a review of government arrest narratives showed that nearly 80% of 113 tracked cases contained either no escape risk assessment or used a template narrative.
- ▪The lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California and other advocacy groups sought to block roving patrols making stops based on race, language, and occupation, and to protect access to counsel for detained individuals.
Supreme Court restraining order reversal
- ▪The U.S. Supreme Court in September 2025 lifted a temporary restraining order previously issued by U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong that restricted sweeping immigration operations in Southern California.
- ▪U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh stated that apparent ethnicity could be a relevant factor for an immigration stop if combined with other information.
DHS legal authority claims
- ▪Federal attorney Daniel Mummolo cited a January 2026 memo by former acting ICE director Todd Lyons stating that officers could make 'on-the-spot' determinations about escape likelihood.
- ▪The U.S. Department of Homeland Security asserted that the U.S. Supreme Court has already vindicated its immigration enforcement and arrest practices.
- ▪The U.S. Department of Homeland Security stated that Immigration and Customs Enforcement has authority for lawful arrests under 8 U.S.C. 1357 and uses reasonable suspicion to investigate immigration status.
Debatable claims
- ▪Unlawful presence alone should justify warrantless civil immigration arrests
- ▪Immigration officers should document escape risk before making warrantless arrests
- ▪Immigration officers should be permitted to consider apparent ethnicity during stops
Story comments
Loading comments…