The Justice Department’s push to loosen restrictions on immigration raids in Los Angeles hit a wall Monday when a federal appeals court panel grilled its lawyer with sharp skepticism.
The Washington Examiner reported that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, known for its liberal leanings, seemed unconvinced by the DOJ’s plea to pause a lower court’s injunction. This clash underscores the ongoing tug-of-war between federal enforcement and local protections.
A three-judge panel, consisting of Judges Ronald Gould, Marsha Berzon, and Jennifer Sung, heard arguments over the DOJ’s request to stay a federal district court’s order limiting immigration raids in Los Angeles based on race, language, location, or job.
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California had previously blocked federal officers from using these factors as the sole basis for immigration status inquiries. The hearing, lasting nearly 90 minutes, saw DOJ lawyer Jacob Roth fielding tough questions, especially from Judges Berzon and Sung.
Roth argued that the injunction hampers law enforcement’s ability to operate effectively. But his claims felt like a stretch, as the panel probed whether the DOJ’s approach was more about bypassing accountability than enforcing the law.
Roth told the court, “Locations are always going to be informed by some context or surveillance.” This vague defense of targeted raids didn’t sit well with the judges, who seemed to see it as a flimsy justification for profiling. The notion that “context” alone justifies sweeping enforcement actions smells like a dodge to skirt constitutional protections.
Judge Berzon, appointed by former President Bill Clinton, pressed Roth on the injunction’s scope, questioning its alleged unlawfulness.
Her pointed inquiries suggested the DOJ’s request might be more about political posturing than legal necessity. Judge Sung, a Biden appointee, echoed similar concerns, leaving Roth scrambling to defend his case.
The ACLU, represented by senior staff attorney Mohammad Tajsar, pushed back hard against the DOJ’s arguments. Tajsar argued that the injunction protects communities from fear-driven enforcement tactics. His stance resonates with those who see federal overreach as a threat to local trust and safety.
Tajsar told the court, “There’s an extraordinary amount of fear and injury throughout Southern California.” He’s not wrong—when federal agents swoop in based on shaky criteria like language or job, it chills entire communities. Yet, the DOJ seems tone-deaf to how its tactics erode public confidence in fair governance.
The ACLU’s case hinges on the real-world impact of unchecked immigration raids. Tajsar noted that over a dozen cities and counties in Southern California have reported heightened fear among residents. This isn’t just legal wrangling—it’s about real people caught in the crosshairs of bureaucratic battles.
Tajsar also questioned the DOJ’s urgency, saying, “It’s not clear why we’re on an emergency posture here.”
His quip exposes the DOJ’s apparent rush to overturn a ruling that’s been in place without catastrophic consequences. The “emergency” feels more like a political maneuver than a genuine crisis.
The Ninth Circuit panel, while skeptical, didn’t tip its hand on a final ruling. The judges promised a swift decision on the DOJ’s motion to stay the injunction, but no timeline was given. This leaves the fate of Los Angeles’ immigration enforcement in limbo, with communities watching closely.
If the appeals court denies the stay, the DOJ could escalate the fight to the Supreme Court. Such a move would signal the administration’s determination to double down on its enforcement priorities. But it risks further alienating those who see the injunction as a shield against discriminatory practices.
The panel’s composition—two Clinton appointees and one from Biden—raises eyebrows among conservatives wary of judicial bias.
Yet, their scrutiny of the DOJ’s arguments shows they’re not just rubber-stamping progressive ideals. Their questions cut to the heart of whether the government’s approach respects constitutional boundaries.
The district court’s injunction isn’t about coddling lawbreakers; it’s about ensuring federal agents don’t cast too wide a net.
Using race or language as a shortcut for immigration status risks trampling on individual rights. Conservatives should care about this—liberty isn’t just for citizens.
The DOJ’s insistence on lifting the injunction feels like a solution in search of a problem. Roth’s defense leaned heavily on hypothetical harms to law enforcement, but where’s the evidence of chaos without these raids? The absence of concrete examples weakens their case and fuels suspicion of overreach.
