A federal judge in California has rejected the government’s bid to dismiss most claims in a class-action lawsuit challenging immigration enforcement tactics in Los Angeles. The ruling means the civil rights case will proceed to trial, keeping alive Fourth and Fifth Amendment arguments that could reshape how immigration agents conduct stops and arrests in Southern California.
What changed
On February 19, 2026, Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied the government’s motion to dismiss all claims except one. The judge found that the plaintiffs’ Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims were sufficiently stated to allow the lawsuit to proceed, dismissing only one Fifth Amendment due-process count because that claim was mooted when some plaintiffs were released from custody.
The case, Vasquez-Perdomo v. Noem, alleges that the Department of Homeland Security unconstitutionally arrested and detained people to meet arbitrary arrest quotas set by the Trump administration, while denying them access to legal counsel. The plaintiffs’ amended complaint alleges that immigration raids featuring military-style tactics are deliberately designed to target Latino communities—in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Equal Protection guarantee and the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable seizure.
Why it matters
This denial allows the lawsuit to survive a critical procedural hurdle and move toward discovery and trial. For immigration practitioners in California, the ruling signals that Fourth and Fifth Amendment challenges to immigration stops—based on allegation of race-based targeting or stops without reasonable suspicion—will not be dismissed out of hand.
The case directly affects how immigration enforcement agents can legally conduct operations in the Central District and the seven Southern California counties covered by earlier temporary restraining orders. The injunction prohibited federal immigration authorities from continuing to detain people without reasonable suspicion during widespread immigration raids in the greater Los Angeles area. While the Supreme Court has stayed that injunction pending appeal, the district court’s denial of the motion to dismiss means plaintiffs have established enough factual detail that constitutional violations are plausible—a significant threshold in civil litigation.
For your clients arrested or detained in Southern California since June 2025 during immigration enforcement operations, this ruling opens a pathway to join or support class-action claims if your facts match the alleged pattern.
Way forward
-
Review your client’s arrest narrative. If your client was stopped or detained during immigration operations in the Central District of California or surrounding counties between June and July 2025, gather details on what the agent said, what factors they cited, and whether you can show the stop was based solely on appearance, accent, location, or work type.
-
Document basis for stop. Preserve or FOIA any body-camera footage, dashcam video, arrest reports, or patrol logs that show what (if anything) the agent articulated before the detention.
-
Consider class certification or intervention. The case has active motions for class certification. You or your client may be able to move to intervene or join as a class member to leverage the plaintiffs’ counsel resources.
-
Coordinate with co-counsel. The case is represented by UC Irvine School of Law’s Immigrant and Racial Justice Solidarity Clinic, ACLU Foundation of Southern California, and other organizations. Reach out to explore coordination if your client is similarly situated.
Disclaimer
This article is provided for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Nothing herein should be construed as an attorney-client relationship or legal advice on your specific situation. Immigration policy, litigation, and federal procedure are complex and change without notice. You must verify any information against the primary source documents linked above and consult a licensed immigration attorney in your jurisdiction before taking action on behalf of any client. The judge’s order denying the motion to dismiss is the beginning of discovery and trial proceedings, not a final ruling on the merits.