The Federal Court of Appeal rejected Friday night the Trump administration’s attempt to stop a restriction that prevents immigration authorities from conducting certain types of enforcement procedures in Los Angeles and the surrounding provinces, and leaving the matter in its place during the continued litigation.
The Court of Appeal in the ninth American Department refused to issue a residence in a case representing internal security practices that challenge, according to the prosecutors, to illegal detention and the disappearance of the residents of South California without orders or legal justification.
The judgment maintains a temporary restriction order (TRO) issued by a minimum court in July, which prohibits the Ministry of National Security and Federal Immigration agents from preventing individuals on the basis of race, language, location or type of work. Specifically, the court found that the use of factors such as Spanish or English speaking with a accent, or attendance in places such as agricultural sites or bus stations, or working in the industries generally related to immigrant workers do not amount to reasonable doubt under the law.
The lawsuit was filed earlier this summer by a coalition of Southern California residents, invitation groups, legal organizations who claim that immigration agents have carried out arrests without justification and confined individuals in a federal building in unsafe conditions without legal access to the lawyer.
In a statement, Mohamed Tagsar, chief employee of the American Civil Liberties Foundation for South California, said that the court’s decision confirmed the seriousness of the claimants of the plaintiffs. “This decision is also an affirmation that the semi -military invasion of the administration Los Angeles violated the constitution and caused an irreplaceable injury throughout the region,” he said.
Annie Lay, director of the Solidarity Solidarity Clinic and Ethnic Justice at the University of California in Irvin, praised the result. Lay said: “None of this was possible without ordinary people to stand and fight for their rights and the rights of their co -workers, co -workers and loved ones.” “This victory belongs to them.”
Mark Rosnabjam, chief special consultant for strategic litigation in the General Adviser, warned that if the government continues to try to cancel TRO, she “requires the courts of racist stereotypes – and residency, for the first time in the history of our nation, that people can be arrested and arrested based on their gender and appearance.”
Angelika Salas, Executive Director of the Humanitarian Rights Coalition, called for a step forward, but stressed the human cost of enforcement. “The true victory will be when all those who have been seized, disappeared, and torn them away from their loved ones and societies through these illegal procedures and tactics safely at home,” Salas said.
Theresa Romero, head of the United Farms, framing the decision as a victory for migrant workers. She said: “You can only extract people because they are two brown and worked hard. Not in the fields, not in a parking lot in the home warehouse, and not on our watch.”
“The court has always supported what we have always known: that dignity, safety and justice belongs to every worker, regardless of the language we are talking about, where we do, or the work we do,” added Armando Godino, CEO of the Los Angeles Center for Workers.
“The ruling is reaffirming that no one is above the law – not even the federal government.”
Prosecutors are an alliance of legal organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union in Southern California, the General Adviser, the Legal offices in Stance Tolchin, the migrant clinic at the University of California at the University of California in Irvin, the racist justice clinic, the National Day Organization Network, and others.
The issue continues.