A Trump administration appeal of a Los Angeles federal judge’s orders limiting the ability of federal agents to detain people without reasonable suspicion beyond their race, ethnicity or occupation could come as early as today after the White House denounced the ruling.
“No federal judge has the authority to dictate immigration policy — that authority rests with Congress and the president,” White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson told City News Service in an email Sunday. “Enforcement operations require careful planning and execution; skills far beyond the purview or jurisdiction of any judge. We expect this gross overstep of judicial authority to be corrected on appeal,” Jackson added.
Friday’s 52-page ruling from U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong bars immigration agencies “from conducting detentive stops in this district unless the agent or officer has reasonable suspicion that the person to be stopped is within the United States in violation of U.S. immigration law.”
The order also bars agents from relying solely on factors such as race/ethnicity, speaking with an accent or being at locations such as bus stops, day laborer sites, car washes or agricultural sites as a basis for detaining people. In a separate ruling, Frimpong ordered immigration agencies to ensure detainees are provided with access to attorneys or legal representatives seven days a week, and access to confidential telephone calls with attorneys at no charge to the detainees — and that those calls “shall not be screened, recorded or otherwise monitored.”
White House border czar Tom Homan criticized the order Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
“Look, we’re going to litigate that order, because I think the order’s wrong. I mean, she’s (Frimpong) assuming that the officers don’t have reasonable suspicion. They don’t need probable cause to briefly detain and question somebody. They just need reasonable suspicion. And that’s based on many articulable facts.
“So, unless she’s in the officer’s mind, I don’t know if she would make that decision that, well, they’re not using reasonable suspicion. How does she know that? I mean, every officer has to bring articulable facts to raise reasonable suspicion, and then they can briefly detain,” Homan said.
“… Physical description can’t be the sole factor to give you reasonable suspicion,” he added. “ … Appearance can be just one. For instance, if someone has an MS-13 tattoo on their face, that may be one factor to add to other factors to raise reasonable suspicion. … But I can tell you this, that every ICE officer goes through Fourth Amendment training every six months, and are reminded what their authorities are for arrest, detention, and questioning. So, the officers are very well-trained.”
Appearing on the same program, Sen. Alex Padilla, D-California, disputed Homan’s claims. “It is appearance. It’s accents. It’s occupation, again, construction workers, farmworkers, you name it. The evidence is out there,” Padilla said.
After Friday’s ruling, U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles Bill Essayli insisted that enforcement agencies have adhered to the law. “We strongly disagree with the allegations in the lawsuit and maintain that our agents have never detained individuals without proper legal justification,” Essayli said. “Our federal agents will continue to enforce the law and abide by the U.S. Constitution.”
