On July2, 2025, the
ACLU filed a lawsuit in federal court against the Trump administration over the ongoing
ICE raids in Los Angeles,
Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of five Los Angeles County residents—Pedro Vasquez Perdomo, Carlos Alexander Osorto, Isaac Villegas Molina, Jorge Hernandez Viramontes, and Jason Brian Gavidia—who had been stopped and detained by ICE agents in June. Joining the suit in favor of Vasquez Perdomo are multiple immigration advocacy groups, Los Angeles County, and the cities of Los Angeles, Pasadena, Santa Monica, Culver City, Pico Rivera, Montebello, Monterey Park, and West Hollywood. The lawsuit claimed that the Trump administration was engaging in unconstitutional roundups and raids without
reasonable suspicion or
probable cause, based on perceived ethnicity, only arresting
Hispanic individuals at places of work that predominantly hire Hispanic people, using
disproportionate force in carrying immigration enforcement activities, and confining individuals without access to their attorneys. U.S. District Judge
Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong concluded on July11, 2025, that those who brought the suit were likely to prove "the federal government is indeed conducting roving patrols without
reasonable suspicion and denying
access to lawyers". The judge ordered the Trump administration to stop immigration arrests without probable cause, alleging that it targeted California residents based on race, language and place of work.
DHS was issued a
temporary restraining order (TRO) effective immediately. The White House said the
DOJ planned to appeal.
Court of appeals The
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard arguments on appeal on July28, 2025 by the DOJ regarding the issued TRO. Hearing the government's profile of roving detentive stops, the three-judge panel questioned the government's reasonable suspicion legal requirement for arrests. The district judge panel issued the appeal ruling on August1, stating that the broad profile does not supply the reasonable suspicion required to justify a detentive stop: "Reasonable suspicion cannot be based on 'generalizations and "the four enumerated factors at issue—apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent, particular location, and type of work, even when considered together— describe only a broad profile and 'do not demonstrate reasonable suspicion for any particular stop. The TRO would therefore remain in place. The judges also questioned the "quota" of 3,000 ICE arrests per day policy as it affects roving raids. The DOJ lawyers verified that no such official directive was issued, but that it was verbally issued by Deputy White House Chief of Staff
Stephen Miller through media interviews. The ACLU and its plaintiffs filed a motion for an
injunction with the district court; a hearing on the motion was scheduled for September 24. On August 7, 2025, Solicitor General
D. John Sauer filed an application of review with the
United States Supreme Court to immediately halt judge Frimpong's TRO. The Southern California cities of Long Beach, Pomona, South Gate, Lynwood, Huntington Park, Paramount, Bell Gardens, Beverly Hills, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Santa Barbara, Carpinteria and Oxnard joined LA in the lawsuit. On September 3, 2025,
NBC News reported that the administration was violating the court order per immigrant advocates and local officials, and the ACLU submitted a new motion asking Frimpong to order additional evidence from the federal government "in light of apparent violations" of her order. Residents also filed additional individual lawsuits following continued raids.
Supreme Court On September 7, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a brief unsigned order granting the Solicitor General's request for a
stay, lifting the TRO restrictions. Three justices dissented from the order,
Elena Kagan,
Sonia Sotomayor, and
Ketanji Brown Jackson. In a concurring opinion, Justice
Brett Kavanaugh argued that while apparent ethnicity alone cannot justify a stop, it may count as a relevant factor along with others when assessing reasonable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment. Kavanaugh stated in his concurring opinion: After that decision, detentions based on the combination of such factors, as described in that opinion, including detentions of US citizens and legal residents, have since been referred to as "Kavanaugh stops". In a separate case,
Trump v. Illinois, where the state challenged the use of the National Guard as part of
Operation Midway Blitz, the Supreme Court issued an order in December 2025 that upheld a lower court's ruling blocking the use of the National Guard. In this order, Kavanaugh added a concurring statement that clarified his language from the earlier order in
Vasquez Perdomo, writing that federal officers "must not make interior immigration stops or arrests based on race or ethnicity". Some legal analysts said that Kavanaugh used the statement to try to corral highly controversial immigration enforcement actions that had occurred since the
Vasquez Perdomo order. ==Examples of stops==