A federal appeals court on Aug. 1 upheld a lower court ruling that barred federal agents from carrying out immigration stops and arrests targeting illegal immigrants without probable cause in Los Angeles.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected an emergency motion filed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to stay a temporary restraining order issued by Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, on July 11.

The restraining order, issued in response to a lawsuit brought by illegal immigrant advocacy groups, prohibits DHS from detaining individuals based on their race, spoken language or accent, occupation, or presence in specific locations such as bus stops.

In a 61-page ruling, the three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit upheld Frimpong’s decision as the judges determined that the government is unlikely to succeed on most of its arguments.

However, the panel agreed with DHS that the order’s clause that prohibits federal agents from carrying out detentive stops based on certain factors “except as permitted by law” was vague.

The panel stated that the phrase “permitted by law” in the restraining order is unclear even to lawyers and judges, let alone “lay persons who are the target of the injunction.”

“We therefore conclude that defendants are likely to succeed on the merits as to that specific clause. Defendants, however, are not likely to succeed on their remaining arguments,” the judges said.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass welcomed the appeals court’s ruling, calling it a victory for the city.

“The temporary restraining order to stop unconstitutional and reckless raids has been upheld. This is a victory for Los Angeles—I will ALWAYS fight for our city,” Bass stated on X.

Mohammad Tajsar, senior staff attorney at the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, which represents the plaintiffs, said in a statement that the ruling confirmed the federal immigration operations “violated the Constitution and caused irreparable injury across the region.”

DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin told The Epoch Times by email that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) targets individuals based on their unlawful presence in the country, not because of their skin color, race, or ethnicity.

“Unelected judges are undermining the will of the American people,” McLaughlin stated.

She also said that the ICE operation focused on removing criminals and MS-13 gang members from Golden State communities.

In the DHS’s July 14 argument to the Ninth Circuit, the lawyers said Frimpong imposed a “sweeping, district-wide injunction” that placed restraints on lawful immigration enforcement affecting every immigration stop and detention.

The government also argued that Frimpong ignored the Supreme Court’s June 27 decision rejecting universal injunctions.

Justice Department lawyers also said the original court action was filed by three individuals seeking release from immigration detention. However, the action was amended to add additional individuals and immigrant organizations in an apparent attempt to obtain a preferred judge and a broader ruling.

The lawsuit was filed on July 2 by five individuals and illegal immigrant advocacy groups—the Los Angeles Worker Center Network, United Farm Workers, the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, and Immigrant Defenders Law Center—alleging that immigration operations violate the Fourth Amendment and Fifth Amendment rights of individuals targeted in the operations.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs alleged that brown-skinned individuals had suddenly been approached and pulled aside by federal agents “with a show of force” and were made to answer questions about their names and origins.

Such encounters allegedly could lead to arrests if the individuals who are targeted “hesitate, attempt to leave, or do not answer the questions to the satisfaction of the agents,” even though the agents allegedly may not have had warrants to detain them, according to the complaint.

DHS has strongly denied allegations of racial profiling, saying the claims amount to a smear tactic against law enforcement officers in the operation targeting illegal immigrants.

The White House criticized Frimpong’s July 11 ruling.

“No federal judge has the authority to dictate immigration policy—that authority rests with Congress and the president,” White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in an emailed response to The Epoch Times on July 16.

“Enforcement operations require careful planning and execution, skills far beyond the purview or jurisdiction of any judge. We expect this gross overstep of judicial authority to be corrected on appeal.”

Jill McLaughlin contributed to this report.

This article has been updated with a response from the Department of Homeland Security.