Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem
FOR PUBLICATION, AUG 1 2025 (2025)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Fourth Amendment, a combination of factors including a person's apparent race, language spoken, presence in a particular location frequented by immigrants, and type of work, does not, without more, constitute the particularized reasonable suspicion required for a detentive immigration stop, especially in a demographically diverse area.
Facts:
- On June 6, 2025, federal immigration authorities began 'Operation At Large' in Los Angeles, deploying 'contact teams' to public places like streets, sidewalks, and businesses such as carwashes.
- Authorities selected certain types of businesses for these encounters based on past experience suggesting they were likely to employ undocumented individuals.
- On June 12, 2025, Jason Brian Gavidia, a Latino U.S. citizen, was stopped by agents outside a tow yard, questioned repeatedly about his birthplace, and physically pushed against a fence.
- On June 18, 2025, Jorge Luis Hernandez Viramontes, a dual U.S.-Mexico citizen and carwash manager, was detained by agents at his workplace after they dismissed his California driver's license as insufficient proof of status.
- On June 18, 2025, three Latino day laborers—Pedro Vasquez Perdomo, Carlos Alexander Osorto, and Isaac Antonio Villegas Molina—were drinking coffee at a bus stop when they were surrounded by armed, masked agents in unmarked cars, handcuffed, and arrested.
- Members of plaintiff organizations, including farm workers and carwash employees, reported being stopped by agents, with some agents specifically targeting individuals who appeared Latino while ignoring their white coworkers.
- Many of the stops involved agents in military-style gear who failed to identify themselves, leading individuals to fear they were being kidnapped.
- U.S. citizens and individuals with lawful immigration status were among those subjected to these detentive stops.
Procedural Posture:
- Pedro Vasquez Perdomo and other individuals and organizations (Plaintiffs) filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Secretary of Homeland Security and other federal officials (Defendants) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
- Plaintiffs alleged a policy of conducting detentive stops without reasonable suspicion, in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
- On July 3, 2025, Plaintiffs applied for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to halt the challenged practices.
- Following briefing and a hearing, the district court granted the TRO on July 11, 2025, enjoining Defendants from conducting stops based solely on a combination of four specified factors.
- Defendants filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit challenging the district court's TRO.
- On July 17, 2025, Defendants filed an emergency motion in the Ninth Circuit, asking for a stay of the TRO pending the outcome of their appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a detentive immigration stop based solely on a combination of a person's apparent race or ethnicity, language, presence at a particular location, and type of work violate the Fourth Amendment's requirement for reasonable suspicion?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, a detentive immigration stop based solely on a combination of a person's apparent race or ethnicity, language, presence at a particular location, and type of work violates the Fourth Amendment. Such factors, even when considered together under a totality of the circumstances analysis, describe only a broad profile of individuals and fail to provide the particularized and objective basis required to form reasonable suspicion. The court reasoned that in a highly diverse area like the Central District of California, where nearly half the population is Latino, factors like apparent ethnicity and speaking Spanish have extremely limited probative value. Citing precedent like United States v. Brignoni-Ponce and United States v. Manzo-Jurado, the court held that reasonable suspicion cannot be based on generalizations that cast suspicion on large segments of the law-abiding population. The facts must provide a rational basis for distinguishing undocumented persons from the vast number of citizens and legal residents who share the same characteristics. Without additional, particularized facts that 'winnow the broad profile,' a stop based on these four factors alone is unconstitutional.
Analysis:
This decision significantly curtails immigration enforcement tactics that rely on broad demographic profiling, especially in diverse metropolitan areas. It reinforces the principle from Brignoni-Ponce that reasonable suspicion must be individualized and cannot rest on characteristics common to a large part of the innocent population. The ruling establishes a clear precedent that the combination of race, language, location, and occupation is legally insufficient on its own for a stop, forcing law enforcement to articulate more specific, suspicious behavior. Furthermore, the court's approval of a district-wide injunction provides a powerful tool for plaintiffs challenging systemic police practices, affirming that broad relief is appropriate when the nature of the constitutional violation makes it impossible for officers to distinguish plaintiffs from non-plaintiffs before inflicting the harm.
