Miriam Jordan is a national immigration correspondent based in Los Angeles. Tim Arango covers criminal justice.
The Trump administration's agenda suffered another setback late Friday when an appeals court upheld a decision that temporarily halts federal agents from making immigration-related arrests in the Los Angeles area without probable cause.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court's finding that the raids appeared to exclusively rely on a person's race and other factors, like speaking Spanish.
The administration's immigration raids have stirred protests and fear for many Latinos across the city, its suburbs and agricultural regions. The panel's decision merely allows a temporary restraining order that had been imposed by the lower court to remain in place. It curtails, for now, the far-reaching operations that began in June as the case proceeds through the courts.
Judge Maame E. Frimpong of Federal District Court in Los Angeles has scheduled a hearing in late September as she weighs a longer-lasting order known as a preliminary injunction.
In their ruling on Friday night, the appellate judges wrote that the plaintiffs "are likely to succeed" in showing that federal agents made arrests based on how people looked, how they spoke and where they lived or worked.
Civil-rights groups led by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California and Public Counsel filed suit on July 2 accusing the Trump administration of unconstitutional sweeps since early June. Nearly 3,000 people have been arrested.
American citizens and immigrants who are legally in the United States have been caught in the dragnet, which fueled protests in Los Angeles and across the country. President Trump had said that other Democratic-led cities would also be targeted, suggesting that the aggressive enforcement tactics deployed in Los Angeles might be replicated elsewhere.
In their 61-page ruling, the appellate judges, all of whom were appointed by Democratic presidents, said it was likely that the arrests were made without "reasonable suspicion."
The judges added that because the arrests were "part of a pattern of officially sanctioned behavior," they were "likely to recur" without court intervention.
Mohammed Tajsar, an attorney with the A.C.L.U. representing the plaintiffs, said the decision was "further confirmation that this administration's paramilitary invasion of Los Angeles violated the Constitution and caused irreparable injury across the region."
The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Mayor Karen Bass of Los Angeles, who has repeatedly called on the White House to end the aggressive enforcement actions, called the ruling "a victory for the rule of law and for the city of Los Angeles" and called on residents to "stand together against this administration's efforts to break up families who contribute every single day to the life, the culture and the economy of our great city."
The City and County of Los Angeles and seven other municipalities joined the lawsuit after heavily armed federal agents, escorted by National Guard troops, marched through MacArthur Park, in the heart of a bustling Latino enclave near downtown Los Angeles, on July 7 in a show of force.
The government now has two options. It can ask all the active Ninth Circuit judges to reconsider the panel's Friday night decision, or it could ask the Supreme Court to issue a stay of Judge Frimpong's order.
The judge issued her order on July 11, saying that "roving patrols" of federal agents were making arrests in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
The Trump administration filed an emergency request to pause the order, arguing that it had undermined its enforcement efforts.
At a hearing on July 28, the three Ninth Circuit judges seemed skeptical as they questioned a Justice Department lawyer about the administration's tactics.
The lawyer, Yaakov Roth, denied there was a policy to target people in the manner described by the plaintiffs, insisting that detentions were made with probable cause.
Judge Jennifer Sung, who was appointed by President Joseph R. Biden Jr., asked him, "What is the harm to be told not to do something that you claim you already are not doing?"
Mr. Roth replied that the government objected to broad restrictions on whom it decides to detain and that cases should be decided on an individual basis. He also said that the order had a chilling effect on agents, who could be subject to contempt charges if it was later determined that they violated the order.
In addition, Mr. Roth said, there might be instances where factors, such as someone's inability to speak English, could support "reasonable suspicion."
Mr. Roth was repeatedly asked whether the Trump administration had set a quota of 3,000 immigration arrests a day, which put pressure on agents. Stephen Miller, a senior White House official who is an architect of the immigration crackdown, cited that number on Fox News in May.
"I'm just trying to understand what would motivate the officers who did the roundup of aliens here to grab such a large number of people so quickly, and without marshaling reasonable suspicion to detain," said Judge Ronald M. Gould, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton.
Mr. Roth said he did not know about a quota, and the judges ordered him to file a letter with the court addressing the issue.
The letter, filed on July 30, denied that a quota was in place. In the letter, the administration said it "conducts its enforcement activities based on individualized assessments, available resources, and evolving operational priorities -- not volume metrics."
The administration has criticized the lower court's ruling, stating in court documents that it was based on "nothing more than media speculation and a series of declarations by individuals who say they were detained by federal agents."
Videos of arrests have shown agents appearing to randomly grab Latinos in working-class neighborhoods.
In early June, the Trump administration began flooding Los Angeles with officers from Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other agencies, like the Border Patrol, that traditionally do not detain people in the country's interior. Groups of masked men, often without insignias to identify their agency, arrested people at bus stops, carwashes, swap meets and outside Home Depot, among other places.
In the weeks since Judge Frimpong's order, enforcement around Los Angeles has abated, and the Trump administration has released all but about 250 of the nearly 5,000 troops who were deployed to assist federal agents and help quell protests. But in the San Diego area, which is not covered by the judge's order, raids have continued to occur, such as at a Home Depot in Encinitas on July 27.