A federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction limiting how immigration agents may conduct detentive stops in seven Southern California counties. The ruling in Vasquez Perdomo v. Mullin addresses alleged racial profiling by federal agents. It does not prohibit all immigration enforcement or all immigration stops.
The order is preliminary, and the government has appealed. Its status may change. Individuals and employers should check current court records before relying on the ruling in a particular situation.
What the court ordered
On October 23, 2026, U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong issued an amended preliminary injunction in Vasquez Perdomo v. Mullin, No. 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. A public amended version of the order, originally entered under seal, is available as ECF No. 823.
Except at a port of entry, checkpoint, or other functional equivalent of the border, the injunction bars federal defendants from conducting detentive stops in the district based on racial stereotyping rather than a pre-stop, individualized assessment of reasonable suspicion. The district covers Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo counties.
Agents must consider the totality of the circumstances. They may not rely solely on a person’s apparent Latino identity and apparent low-income or working-class status to establish reasonable suspicion. The order says that remains true even when an identified target is described as sharing those characteristics.
The injunction is limited. It does not bar every immigration stop, prohibit every consideration of race in every circumstance, or prevent agents from enforcing immigration law when they have a lawful basis to act. It addresses the challenged stereotyping-based practice and sole reliance on those characteristics.
Why the judge issued the injunction
The lawsuit was brought by five individuals (Pedro Vasquez Perdomo, Carlos Alexander Osorto, Isaac Villegas Molina, Jorge Hernandez Viramontes, and Jason Brian Gavidia) and three organizations: Los Angeles Worker Center Network, United Farm Workers, and the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights. Twenty-one cities and Los Angeles County intervened.
The court found that plaintiffs were likely to prove, at this stage, that the government had an unwritten, officially sanctioned practice of detaining people because they appeared Latino, or Latino and working class. The court relied on more than 50 declarations, agent deposition testimony, text messages, and body-camera footage. It cited, among other evidence, agents’ statements about pursuing people in the field, supervisors’ testimony about the role apparent race could play in reasonable suspicion, and video of Gavidia being restrained against a fence while saying he was born in Los Angeles.
The court concluded that plaintiffs were likely to show violations of both the Fourth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment’s equal-protection guarantee. It reasoned that appearance and perceived socioeconomic status do not, by themselves, establish individualized reasonable suspicion, and that the alleged express use of race did not satisfy strict scrutiny.
These are preliminary findings, not a final ruling that the alleged policy exists or that the government is liable. The government disputes the allegations.
Classes certified and limits of the order
In a companion order, the court certified two classes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). The class-certification order, ECF No. 825, defines:
- A First Discriminatory Treatment Class covering people stopped in the district since June 6, 2025, at least in part because of their apparent Latino race, color, or ethnicity, subject to stated border and known-target exceptions.
- A modified Suspicionless Stops Class covering people stopped in the district since June 6, 2025, based on their apparent status as both low-income or working class and Latino.
Class certification permits the case to proceed on behalf of people within the definitions. It does not decide every individual’s immigration status, determine that every stop was unlawful, or provide individualized relief in a specific case.
The court denied without prejudice the request to require documentation and reporting of stops. It required no bond and rejected the government’s request for a 14-day delay in the injunction.
Appeal and current status
The government appealed on October 28, 2026, and filed an amended notice of appeal. The appeal is Vasquez Perdomo, et al. v. Scott, et al., No. 26-6891, in the Ninth Circuit. The government also asked the district court to stay the injunction pending appeal. The plaintiffs opposed that request. The government asked for a ruling by 5 p.m. Pacific Time on November 2 and said it would seek relief from the Ninth Circuit.
The district court’s October 23 order denied the government’s separate request for a 14-day delay. That is distinct from the later request for a stay pending appeal. The sources available for this article do not confirm a ruling on that later stay request or appellate relief as of November 3, 2026. Review the Ninth Circuit appeal docket in No. 26-6891 and the district court docket for updates before relying on the injunction’s current status.
The ruling followed a July 11, 2025 temporary restraining order in the same case. The Supreme Court stayed that TRO on September 8, 2025, in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, No. 25A169; three justices dissented. Judge Frimpong said the new injunction differed materially in its terms, evidence, and legal theories, and declined to treat the unexplained stay as precedent resolving the new motion. The Supreme Court docket records the prior stay.
The Department of Homeland Security’s statement, reported by City News Service and KESQ, said agents “are focused on protecting the American people, not entertaining performative outrage.” For additional reporting and source context, see NPR’s coverage, the ACLU of Southern California’s announcement, and SignalData’s case update.
Know your rights during an immigration stop
The injunction binds the government defendants. It is not a personal legal shield that allows someone to disregard an agent’s instructions or guarantees that a stop will not occur. The following steps are general safety and rights information, not a substitute for legal advice:
- Remain calm and do not physically resist. Do not run, obstruct officers, or make sudden movements.
- Ask whether you are free to leave. If the answer is yes, leave calmly. If the answer is no, ask why you are being detained.
- You may state that you wish to remain silent and want to speak with an attorney. Do not lie, provide false information, or present false documents. Do not assume that remaining silent will prevent an arrest or resolve an immigration matter.
- Do not sign documents you do not understand or have not reviewed with a lawyer. Ask to speak with an attorney before signing.
- Do not treat the injunction as a guarantee. If you believe agents relied on racial stereotyping, the order may be relevant background for a lawyer, but it does not require agents to release you at the scene or automatically invalidate a stop.
Rules about required documents may depend on a person’s circumstances. Do not assume the injunction changes any document-carrying obligation that may apply to you. A lawyer can assess your immigration status, documents, and encounter.
Planning with family and documenting an encounter
Mixed-status families can make a practical plan in advance. Identify a trusted emergency contact, arrange childcare and school pickup contingencies, and keep copies of important documents in a secure place that a trusted person can access. Family members should not provide false information about another person’s status or location.
After an encounter, write down what happened as soon as it is safe. Record the date, time, location, agency or names and badge numbers if visible, what was said, whether officers showed a warrant, how the encounter ended, and the names of witnesses. Preserve photos, video, messages, medical records, and paperwork. Do not alter or publish materials before obtaining legal advice if doing so could create risks.
Contact an immigration attorney promptly if someone is detained, was injured, was asked to sign documents, faces a pending immigration matter, or believes a stop involved racial profiling. A Los Angeles immigration attorney can assess whether the injunction or other legal remedies may be relevant. Immigration proceedings are fact-specific, and deadlines can be short.
What employers and HR teams should know
The injunction creates no new Form I-9 or E-Verify duties. Employers should not change hiring, onboarding, reverification, or recordkeeping practices based on rumors about the ruling. Apply ordinary I-9 procedures consistently if an employee presents a document or reports an encounter outcome.
Employers must avoid treating workers differently because of national origin, ethnicity, accent, or perceived immigration status. If an employee is detained or unavailable for work, consult counsel before changing employment records or taking action that could implicate employment or anti-discrimination laws.
This case concerns immigration stops in Southern California. It is separate from litigation in the Northern District of California involving DHS voter investigations.
Get case-specific guidance
The court’s ruling is an important development, but it does not resolve every person’s rights or immigration status. Individuals, families, and employers should verify current court developments and seek legal advice about their specific facts.
Blasingame Law LLC provides immigration guidance for individuals, families, and employers. Review our immigration law services or contact our office to discuss your circumstances.
This blog post provides general legal information, not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Immigration law and court orders can change, and the outcome of any matter depends on its specific facts. Consult a qualified immigration attorney for advice about your situation.
