A CALIFORNIA FEDERAL COURT ENJOINS ICE—JUSTICE JACKSON WOULD APPROVE BECAUSE FEELINGS ARE ACTUALLY LAW
INTRODUCTION
On July 11th, 2025, US District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, a recent Biden appointee, entered an extraordinarily broad and likely unlawful Ex Parte Restraining Order essentially telling federal immigration authorities that they cannot enforce immigration law in the Central District of California unless they meet certain guidelines. “Ex Parte” really means without one party having sufficient notice and is very disfavored in the law. This Order was based on the affidavits of three presumably illegal aliens who were detained, two U.S. citizens detained and released when their citizenship was verified, and a group of arguably radical organizations, one or more of which have been accused of inciting and supporting violence against ICE in Los Angeles and elsewhere. Incredibly, this judge gave standing to sue to such organizations as CHIRLA—The Coalition for Human Immigrant Rights—accused of incitement and support for violence against the lawful authority of federal agents and sowing chaos in Los Angeles; the United Farm Workers (yes, you heard right); The Los Angeles Workers Center Network, a Marxist labor organization; and two immigrant legal defense organizations comprised of most probably barely employable neo-Marxist lawyers who get paid by grants to roadblock removals and other lawful activity of the Executive. This stretches the concept of legal standing such that it must not stand. In addition, these diverse groups were sorted into “classes” without so much as a proper analysis of whether Rule 23 would even allow this. A stay of this unlawful Order was denied by the court. An appeal must follow, but what awaits is a review in the Ninth Circuit, the most liberal appellate bench in the nation, and a severe roadblock to legitimate federal enforcement might be the new reality.
EVEN THE NINTH CIRCUIT, FOLLOWING SUPREME COURT GUIDANCE, CAUTIONS AGAINST SUCH DRASTIC RELIEF WITHOUT A HEARING ON THE MERITS AND PROPER NOTICE
The United States objected to the procedure and had little to no opportunity to prevent countervailing evidence from the ICE agents themselves or the personnel at the temporary and permanent detention facilities to rebut the bare allegations that unlawful detentions were taking place without reasonable suspicion and that detainees were being denied legal counsel. The Court found, based on affidavits alone and NEWSPAPER ARTICLES, that roving bands of agents were detaining persons based on factors such as skin color and location without sufficient reasonable suspicion. I also add that the public hearsay statement of “local officials” was considered by the Court as well as other media coverage. This is not evidence. The Court also found on one-sided “evidence” that counsel was being denied to the detainees. All without the full story. The United States was limited to oral argument, and the court rejected the proffers of the government in favor of anecdotes and affidavits provided by the plaintiffs. To be sure, anyone, including illegal aliens on our soil, is covered by basic Constitutional protections, including the Fourth Amendment. An “arrest” must be made upon probable cause, and an investigatory detention must be based upon reasonable suspicion. These detentions are highly fact-specific in the immigration enforcement context, and there are many factors that come into play. Removal and detention are civil in nature, and deference should be given to the good faith proffers of trained agents in this non-criminal context. All would agree that roving sweeps that detain persons based solely on skin color or other arguably neutral factors are a Fourth Amendment violation. Administrative warrants on a case-by-case basis are preferred. What is faulty about this court’s analysis is her statement that there was a “mountain of evidence” supporting her ruling when in fact there was no evidence from the government, and much of the “evidence” was in the form of affidavits and, yes, NEWSPAPER ARTICLES, including statements of political hacks like Governor Newsome and Karen Bass, undoubtedly. That is why this premature and drastic ruling is contrary to written law and must be challenged. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has followed the Supreme Court’s direction when it has repeatedly cautioned against such drastic relief, especially when one party cannot properly be heard:
“A temporary restraining order (TRO) may be granted without written or oral notice to the adverse party … only if (1) it clearly appears … that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the applicant before the adverse party or that party’s attorney can be heard in opposition, and (2) the applicant’s attorney certifies to the court in writing the efforts, if any, which have been made to give the notice and the reasons supporting the claim that notice should not be required. Every (TRO) granted without notice shall … define the injury and state why it is irreparable and why the order was granted without notice.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(b) (emphasis added). In Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423, 94 S.Ct. 1113, 39 L.Ed.2d 435 (1974), the Supreme Court explained that circumstances justifying the issuance of an ex parte order are extremely limited:
The stringent restrictions imposed … by Rule 65 on the availability of ex parte temporary restraining orders reflect the fact that our entire jurisprudence runs counter to the notion of court action taken before reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard has been granted to both sides of a dispute. Ex parte temporary restraining orders are no doubt necessary in certain circumstances, but under federal law they should be restricted to serving their underlying purpose of preserving the status quo and preventing irreparable harm just so long as is necessary to hold a hearing, and no longer.”
Nothing of the sort occurred here. Read the ruling here. The Court places significant restrictions on the Executive, including a definitive statement that rights have been violated without countervailing evidence, and as you can read in the Order, directs that the United States, through its ICE enforcement apparatus in the Central District of California, MUST give to the defendants counsel, yes, including the United Farm Workers, a maintained list of detention stops and a list of factors supporting reasonable suspicion for such stops on a regular schedule. The Court is dictating how the Executive will enforce its discretionary immigration enforcement protocols and telling it to answer to a cadre of Marxist activists who are trying to obstruct the federal government from enforcing the law. Incredibly, while pronouncing that rights have been violated without a full evidentiary hearing and enjoining enforcement methods and placing the government on terms, the Court stated:
“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy and should not be granted unless the movant, by clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion. At this stage the Court is only determining whether Plaintiffs have met their burden for a preliminary injunction. ACCORDINGLY, THIS ORDER IS NOT A FINAL DECISION ON THE MERITS OF ANY CLAIM, NOR IS IT A DECISION ON THE MERITS OF THE FACTUAL ASSERTIONS EITHER PARTY MADE IN SUPPORT OF ANY CLAIM.”
This Court certified THREE de facto classes without any hearing, gave standing to special interest anti-immigration groups with an anti-law enforcement agenda, and purported to direct how the Executive enforces the law in a sanctuary jurisdiction wherein the populace has engaged in violence to thwart the removal of persons unlawfully in this country. It sure sounds like a final decision on the merits. It cannot stand.
CONCLUSION
Federal agents must get it right. Kristi Noem and Tom Homan knew that California would put up every political, media, and legal roadblock to lawful efforts to remove illegal aliens, especially criminal aliens. It is fundamental that an arrest or detention must have a sufficient factual predicate. What will follow in the wake of a cadre of leftist judges making similar rulings will be a cascade of civil rights actions in front of sympathetic jurors who will open the U.S. Treasury. No one is suggesting that fundamental rights are not at play, but when the legal and political apparatus of a sanctuary jurisdiction are lying in wait for you, it is time for your “A” game.
Mike Imprevento
July 14, 2025
