Government’s Own Records Reveal Racial Profiling in Federal Immigration Stops

LOS ANGELES – Last night, plaintiffs in Vasquez Perdomo v. Mullin asked a federal court to block the Trump administration from conducting suspicionless and racially discriminatory immigration stops, pointing to a dramatically expanded evidentiary record that contradicts the government’s account of its enforcement operations and shows agents relied on race and ethnicity in deciding whom to stop.

The motion for preliminary injunction follows months of expedited discovery that produced:

• internal government directives encouraging agents to increase arrests of people who were not immigration enforcement targets;
• sworn testimony acknowledging that apparent Hispanic ethnicity played a role in enforcement decisions about whom to stop and detain;
• internal communications and body-worn camera footage in which agents used racist slurs to refer to people who appear Latino and low-income or working-class; operational records that plaintiffs say reveal “targeted” operations have served as a pretext for detentions based on race;
• and other evidence that shows that unlawful practices have continued even after the government claimed its operations had changed.

In a video cited in the filing, one agent said to another: “Yeah, just plug us in wherever you see some tonks…,” while other agents guessed whether people were “wet” simply based on appearance. “Tonks” is a derogatory and violent term understood to refer to the sound of a flashlight striking a migrant’s head. “Wet” is short for “wetback” and is a racist slur historically directed at Mexican and other Latino immigrants crossing the Rio Grande.

“This filing should shock the conscience. Evidence gathered from the government has confirmed what our communities have known all along: immigration officers are flagrantly violating the law by detaining people without justification and often primarily because of the color of their skin," said Mayra Joachin, deputy director of immigrants’ rights at the ACLU Foundation of Southern California (ACLU SoCal), representing the plaintiffs. "The government’s own records expose a pattern of racial profiling that violates some of our Constitution’s most fundamental protections. With our plaintiffs, we will continue fighting in court until these unlawful practices end."

Plaintiffs argue the Constitution prohibits law enforcement from using race as a substitute for individualized suspicion. The motion alleges the stops violated both the Fourth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection.

"Our communities have been denouncing foul play from day one. The evidence doesn't lie: these arrests were never about safety, they were about skin color. We repudiate this racial profiling in the strongest terms — our communities deserve better,” said Angelica Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA), a plaintiff in the case.

Residents, workers and advocacy groups sued DHS in July 2025, alleging unconstitutional stop and detention practices by agents tied to arbitrary enforcement quotas.

A federal district court initially issued a temporary restraining order limiting certain enforcement actions. In August 2025, without offering any reasoning whatsoever, the Supreme Court granted the government’s request to stay that order while litigation proceeds, allowing the challenged practices to continue.

“A year ago, farm workers across California were terrorized by brutal and unconstitutional raids based on racial and class profiling,” said Teresa Romero, president of the United Farm Workers (UFW), a plaintiff. “Today, the fear left behind by those raids continues. Farm workers go to work afraid they may not come home, even as they put food on all of our tables. America owes the workers who feed it much better. The workers who feed this country deserve so much better.”

This motion asks the court to prohibit immigration agents from stopping or detaining people because they appear to be low-income or working- class and Latino. The court has scheduled a hearing on the motion for September 24, 2026, at 10 a.m.

“From the moment we filed this case, LAWCN has stood with workers, immigrant communities, U.S. citizens and low-wage workers who said they were being targeted because of their race,” said Armando Gudino, executive director of the Los Angeles Work Center Network (LAWCN), a plaintiff. “The government’s own records now validate those claims and reinforce the urgent need for accountability and an immediate end to these unconstitutional and illegal practices against our communities.”

The suit was originally brought by five individual Latino workers and three membership organizations—CHIRLA, LAWCN and UFW—as well as Immigrant Defenders Law Center, a legal services provider.

The plaintiffs are represented by the ACLU SoCal; Public Counsel; UC Irvine School of Law Immigrant and Racial Justice Solidarity Clinic; National Day Laborer Organizing Network; Munger Tolles & Olson LLP; Law Offices of Stacy Tolchin; ACLU Foundations of Northern California and San Diego & Imperial Counties; Hecker Fink LLP; Martinez Aguilasocho Law, Inc.; CHIRLA; and Immigrant Defenders Law Center.

Read the motion