Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem is a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by five individual plaintiffs and four plaintiff organizations, the Los Angeles Worker Center Network (LAWCN), United Farm Workers (UFW), Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA), and Immigrant Defenders Law Center (ImmDef).
The lawsuit challenges the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) and other federal agencies’ policies and practices in connection with immigration raids in Southern California. More specifically, the lawsuit challenges Defendants’ widespread, racially discriminatory, and suspicionless stops of people; their warrantless arrests of people without following requirements under federal law; and their detention of individuals at a holding facility in downtown Los Angeles called B-18 in inhumane conditions and without access to counsel.
Some of the plaintiffs also seek to represent three classes of individuals, i.e., people who have been or will be:
The amended complaint was filed on July 2, 2025.
The City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, as well as Culver City, Montebello, Monterey Park, Pasadena, Pico Rivera, Santa Monica, and West Hollywood, have also moved to intervene in the case.
Read more about the case on ACLU SoCal’s website here and Public Counsel’s website here.
On July 2 and July 3, 2025, the plaintiffs filed two requests for a temporary restraining order (TRO).
On July 11, 2025, the district court granted the Plaintiffs’ requests for emergency relief.
The TROs will not automatically end after 14 days. The TROs are in effect until the court rules on a future motion for a preliminary injunction, which the plaintiffs plan to file on July 28, and there is now a hearing scheduled for September 24 at 9am. However, the government has appealed the TROs and has requested that the Stop/Arrest Plaintiffs’ TRO be “stayed,” or paused, while the appeal is pending. See below for more information.
The district court’s order covers all seven counties that fall within the Central District of California: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura.
The order applies to all law enforcement officers who are conducting immigration enforcement in the Central District of California. It prohibits unlawful stops by DHS agents, including ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), ERO (Enforcement and Removal Operations), CBP (Customs and Border Protection), and HSI (Homeland Security Investigations), and by other agents participating in immigration enforcement, such as the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation).
No, not quite. The district court’s July 11 order means that federal immigration agents cannot rely only on four factors as the basis for stopping an individual: (1) their apparent race or ethnicity; (2) the fact that they speak Spanish or English with an accent; (3) their presence in a particular location like a bus stop, car wash, or agricultural site; or (4) the type of work the person does.
Because the evidence shows federal agents are conducting “roving patrols” and stopping individuals without any specific information other than these impermissible four factors, the order should impact agents’ ability to continue stopping and terrorizing individuals as they have been. But it does not prevent agents from approaching people for questioning with their consent and it does not prevent agents from stopping a person if they have specific information about a person—beyond just these four factors—that indicates the person is violating federal law or is unlawfully present in the United States. For instance, agents may have information about a person who has a final order of removal, in addition to information about what they look like and where they work, which they may use to stop and arrest that person.
On July 13, the federal government appealed part of the district court’s July 11 order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The government appealed the Stop/Arrest Plaintiffs’ TRO, which bars agents from stopping individuals without reasonable suspicion and orders that agents cannot rely solely on the four factors described above. The government has NOT appealed the Access/Detention Plaintiffs’ TRO—the portion of the court’s July 11 TRO order requiring legal visitation at B-18 and access to a confidential phoneline to communicate with attorneys.
The government has also asked the district court and the Court of Appeals to “stay” the Stop/Arrest Plaintiffs’ TRO, which bars the agents from stopping individuals without reasonable suspicion as described above. If granted, a “stay” would pause the Stop/Arrest Plaintiffs’ TRO from being in effect until the Court of Appeals decides if the TRO is appropriate. The Vasquez Perdomo plaintiffs and their lawyers are strongly opposing the government’s requests for a stay.
On July 14, the government filed two motions requesting that the Court of Appeals “stay” the Stop/Arrest Plaintiffs’ TRO. The government also filed a motion with the district court requesting the same—that the court stay the Stop/Arrest Plaintiffs’ TRO while their appeal is pending. On July 16, the Court of Appeals denied the government’s request for a stay of the Stop/Arrest Plaintiffs’ TRO, noting that the government failed to file their motion with the district court first and did not explain why doing so would have been impracticable. Also on July 16, the district court denied the government’s motion requesting a stay, finding that the government cannot be harmed by having to comply with the law and that the TRO does not interfere with the government lawfully enforcing immigration law.
The government has since filed another motion to stay the Stop/Arrest Plaintiffs’ TRO with the Court of Appeals. On July 18, the Court of Appeals denied the government’s request that they immediately stay the Stop/Arrest Plaintiffs’ TRO and has set a hearing for July 28, 2025, at 1pm PDT (via videoconference), where the court will hear arguments about the government’s motion to stay the Stop/Arrest Plaintiffs’ TRO while the appeal is pending.
As of the date this FAQ is published (July 21), the July 11 order—including the Stop/Arrest Plaintiffs’ TRO—remains in place and the government must comply with it. We will continue to provide updates via ACLU SoCal’s website and social media platforms (Instagram, X, Bluesky).
The plaintiffs and their lawyers are fighting to preserve the Stop/Arrest Plaintiffs’ TRO that prevents the federal government from stopping individuals in violation of the Fourth Amendment. There will be hearing at the Court of Appeals on the government’s motion to stay the TRO on July 28 at 1pm PDT via videoconference.
The Access/Detention Plaintiffs’ TRO requiring that the federal government provide detained individuals with access to counsel will remain in place for the time being.
The plaintiffs and their lawyers are also preparing to ask the court to enter a preliminary injunction that, if granted, would provide relief from the government’s violations for a longer time period—while the lawsuit is pending and being decided. The plaintiffs will file their motion for a preliminary injunction on July 28, 2025, and a hearing is scheduled to be held on September 24, 2025 at 9am before the district court.
You can stay up to date by visiting ACLU SoCal’s website here and by following us on social media:
If you or a loved one were stopped or arrested by immigration agents, please contact the ACLU SoCal at https://socalintake.aclusocal.org/. If you or a loved one are or were held at B-18 and have had issues with accessing counsel or other conditions, please contact Public Counsel at 213-385-2977 or ImmDef at 213-833-8283.
Please also contact your local rapid response network (find your local RRN here) if you observe immigration activity or if a loved one has been arrested by immigration agents.
You can also learn more about CHIRLA, the LA Worker Center Network and its member centers, and the UFW.
If you encounter immigration agents in public:
If you interact with immigration agents at the workplace (all recommendations above apply):
If you are arrested and taken to a facility like B-18 -- the federal building in Los Angeles:
For rapid responders, your right to record and what details to capture:
Regardless of your immigration status or whether you know the person being arrested, under the First Amendment, you have the right to record law enforcement exercising their official duties—including ICE and other federal immigration authorities:
Capture details like:
* The information in this document does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice, and is for general informational purposes only. You should contact an attorney for legal advice. Information in this guide also may not constitute the most up-to-date information and should be verified with current sources.