Federal Court Faces Plea to Halt Controversial Immigration Policy
LOS ANGELES – In a significant legal move, plaintiffs in the case Vazquez Perdomo v. Marin urged a federal court to intervene and block the Trump administration’s immigration suspension, which they allege is rooted in racial bias. They presented a substantially expanded evidence record that contradicts the government’s narrative on enforcement practices, revealing that race and ethnicity significantly influence officers’ decisions on whom to stop.
Key Evidence Stemming from Swift Investigations
This call for a preliminary injunction follows several months of expedited discovery, unveiling internal directives intended to increase arrests of individuals not typically subject to immigration enforcement. Testimonies confirm that perceived Hispanic ethnicity has influenced enforcement choices. Internal communications and body-worn camera footage reportedly depict staff using racial slurs against individuals they perceive as Latino, low-income, or working-class. Plaintiffs argue that operational records substantiate claims of a “targeted” operation, highlighting a troubling pattern of race-based detention, even as the government asserts changes in its operational practices.
Disturbing Revelations from Surveillance Footage
Among the video evidence submitted in the filings, one agent appears to tell a colleague, “Yeah, plug it in wherever the ton comes out…” while speculating about whether individuals are “wet,” based solely on their appearance. The term “tonks” is a derogatory expression suggesting violence against migrants, while “wet” is a historically loaded slur directed at Mexican and other Latino immigrants crossing the Rio Grande.
ACLU Voices Strong Condemnation
“This application should shock the conscience,” stated Myra Joachin, deputy director of immigrant rights at ACLU SoCal, which is representing the plaintiffs. She argued that the evidence reinforces a sordid reality: Immigration officials often detain individuals without just cause, primarily based on skin color, thus contravening constitutional protections. “We will persist in our legal fight until these unlawful practices are eradicated,” she added.
Constitutional Violations Alleged
The plaintiffs maintain that the Constitution forbids law enforcement from utilizing race as a basis for suspicion. Their motion highlights violations of the Fourth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, arguing that racial profiling undermines fundamental legal guarantees.
Community Outcry Against Racial Profiling
“Our community has condemned this injustice from the outset,” remarked Angelica Salas, executive director of the Humane Immigrant Rights Coalition (CHIRLA), one of the plaintiffs. She emphasized that the evidence clearly indicates that racial bias governs enforcement actions, illustrating a wider community sentiment for accountability and reform.
Impact on Workers and Broader Community
In July 2025, a coalition of residents, workers, and advocacy groups filed suit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), denouncing unconstitutional suspension and detention practices that stem from arbitrary enforcement directives. Initially, a federal district court issued a temporary restraining order on certain enforcement actions, but the Supreme Court later allowed the government to pause this restriction while the litigation is unresolved.
Upcoming Court Hearing Scheduled
The plaintiffs’ motion demands that immigration officials be prohibited from stopping or detaining individuals based solely on appearances associated with low-income status or Latino ethnicity. A hearing for this motion is set for September 24, 2026, at 10 a.m. Armando Gudino, executive director of the Los Angeles Work Center Network (LAWCN) and a plaintiff, expressed the urgency of the situation, stating, “The government’s own records validate our claims, underscoring the immediate need to cease these unconstitutional practices affecting our communities.”
The lawsuit brings together five Latino workers, three participating organizations (CHIRLA, LAWCN, and UFW), and the Immigrant Advocates Law Center.
The plaintiffs receive legal support from ACLU SoCal, Public Counsel, University of California Irvine’s Immigration and Racial Justice Solidarity Clinic, and several other advocacy groups.
