Roving Immigration Stops and Racial Profiling: Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem

Status: In litigation — Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo (No. 25A169 (U.S.); No. 2:25-cv-05605 (C.D. Cal.); No. 25-4312 (9th Cir.))

During June 2025 immigration enforcement operations across the Los Angeles area, federal agents conducted brief investigative stops of people in public places. On July 11, 2025, a federal district court (Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong) issued a temporary order barring agents from making such stops based solely on four factors: apparent race or ethnicity; speaking Spanish or English with an accent; presence at locations such as car washes, bus stops, or day-labor sites; and the type of work a person appears to do. On September 8, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the government's emergency request and stayed (paused) that order while the appeal proceeds, so the stops are not currently blocked. The Supreme Court's order was an interim, emergency ruling that did not decide the merits; a later district court order (Feb. 19, 2026) stated the Supreme Court "said nothing about what the Government did in Los Angeles." The lawsuit continues in the district court and the Ninth Circuit, and a separate preliminary injunction requiring attorney access at a Los Angeles detention site remains in effect.

Next step: Ninth Circuit review of the government's appeal, and the district court's rulings on the preliminary injunction and class certification. No date for a final decision has been set.

Verified against the primary source as of 2026-07-25 — status can change with a single court ruling. Official source.

What’s happening

During June 2025 immigration enforcement operations across the Los Angeles area, federal agents conducted brief investigative stops of people in public places. On July 11, 2025, a federal district court (Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong) issued a temporary order barring agents from making such stops based solely on four factors: apparent race or ethnicity; speaking Spanish or English with an accent; presence at locations such as car washes, bus stops, or day-labor sites; and the type of work a person appears to do. On September 8, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the government’s emergency request and stayed (paused) that order while the appeal proceeds, so the stops are not currently blocked. The Supreme Court’s order was an interim, emergency ruling that did not decide the merits; a later district court order (Feb. 19, 2026) stated the Supreme Court “said nothing about what the Government did in Los Angeles.” The lawsuit continues in the district court and the Ninth Circuit, and a separate preliminary injunction requiring attorney access at a Los Angeles detention site remains in effect.

Who it affects

People in the Los Angeles area, and potentially elsewhere, who could be subject to brief immigration stops by federal agents during enforcement operations. The case concerns what factors agents may use to form “reasonable suspicion” under the Fourth Amendment, including whether apparent ethnicity, speaking Spanish or accented English, the type of place a person is in, and the kind of work they appear to do can support a stop. While the Supreme Court’s stay is in effect, the district court’s limits on those stops are paused. A separate part of the case protects access to a lawyer for people detained at a downtown Los Angeles facility. This is general information, not legal advice.

How it got here

  1. Jul 11, 2025 A federal district court (Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong) issued a temporary order barring agents from making suspicionless immigration stops based solely on apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or accented English, location, or type of work.
  2. Aug 1, 2025 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the government's request to pause the district court's order.
  3. Sep 8, 2025 The U.S. Supreme Court granted the government's emergency application and stayed (paused) the order, allowing the stops to continue during the appeal. Justice Kavanaugh wrote a concurrence; Justice Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson.
  4. Nov 13, 2025 The district court issued a separate preliminary injunction requiring access to attorneys at a downtown Los Angeles detention facility, a Fifth Amendment claim not covered by the Supreme Court's stay.
  5. Feb 19, 2026 The district court denied the government's motion to dismiss most claims, stating that the Supreme Court's stay decided nothing about the lawfulness of the Los Angeles enforcement operations.

What to watch next

Ninth Circuit review of the government’s appeal, and the district court’s rulings on the preliminary injunction and class certification. No date for a final decision has been set.

Official sources

This page is general information about ongoing litigation, not legal advice. A case’s status can change with a single ruling, and outcomes can turn on facts specific to each person. For advice on a specific situation, consult a licensed immigration attorney or a DOJ-accredited representative.