Pedro Vasquez Perdomo v. Kristi Noem
2:25-cv-05605
| C.D. Cal. | Jul 17, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs (individuals and organizations) sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) to stop federal immigration officials from conducting roving patrols and detentions without reasonable suspicion, specifically based on race, language, location, or occupation.
- The district court previously granted the TRO, enjoining federal agents from using those factors alone or together to support reasonable suspicion for stops or arrests, citing Fourth Amendment grounds.
- Defendants (the federal government and related officials) filed an ex parte application to stay (pause) the TRO pending appeal and argued that complying with the TRO would hinder immigration enforcement.
- Multiple Southern California cities moved to accelerate the schedule to intervene in the case, hoping to have their interests considered before briefing on a preliminary injunction.
- The court considered whether to grant the government's stay and whether to advance the cities' intervention hearing, and set a schedule for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should the court stay the TRO pending appeal? | TRO enforces constitutional rules and correcting it does not harm defendants. | Failure to stay will irreparably harm government’s ability to enforce immigration laws. | Stay denied: no irreparable harm shown, compliance with law is not harm. |
| Did defendants comply with Local Rule 7-19.1 for ex parte relief? | Application is deficient under local rules. | (No specific opposition on technical compliance.) | Stay denied for procedural noncompliance. |
| Is the TRO vague, overbroad, or harmful to agency operations? | TRO is clear, warranted, and constitutionally required; no evidence of disruptions. | TRO creates confusion, uncertainty, and impairs operations. | Court finds TRO is clear, aligns with existing law, not vague or overbroad. |
| Should briefing for city intervenors be expedited? | N/A (not a direct party to this application) | Cities seek expedited hearing to advance their distinct interests. | Request denied as moot: court’s current schedule allows full opportunity to be heard later. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (stay of injunctions pending appeal requires irreparable harm and other Nken factors)
- United States v. Mitchell, 971 F.3d 993 (stay pending appeal is an extraordinary remedy)
- Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719 (an agency is not harmed by being enjoined from violating the Constitution)
- United States v. Manzo-Jurado, 457 F.3d 928 (Fourth Amendment requires particularized suspicion beyond broad profiles)
- Orhorhaghe v. INS, 38 F.3d 488 (subjective experience cannot substitute for objective facts in reasonable suspicion analysis)