From a bus stop to plaintiffs, California immigrants at forefront of seismic pause on ICE raids

It’s a waiting game for Carlos Alexander Osorto and his daughter, Sady, 29.

Her father’s bond hearing is Wednesday, rescheduled from July 8 to July 16 — another delay in a process that she said is affecting the health of the patriarch, who came from Honduras in 2010 and ultimately settled in Pasadena.

That’s where Osorto, Pedro Vasquez Perdomo and Isaac Villegas Molina, were sitting at a bus stop across from a Pasadena Winchell’s Donuts on the morning of June 18.

Four cars suddenly stopped at the spot, and six masked and armed federal agents emerged and converged, detaining the men without immediately identifying themselves, according to the lawsuit filed by Public Counsel and the American Civil Liberties Union.

Along with Jorge Hernandez Viramontes, of Baldwin Park — questioned and detained from his job at an Orange County car wash — and Jason Brian Gavidia, an East L.A. resident stopped and questioned, from an L.A. County tow yard,  Osorto and his co-laborers at the Pasadena bus stop have found themselves the lead plaintiffs in a federal case that could help determine the legal trajectory of President Donald Trump’s massive immigration crackdown.

That case rippled through Southern California on Friday and into Monday, after the Trump administration filed an emergency motion to stay, pending appeal, U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong’s Friday ruling that halts “roving” federal detention stops without reasonable suspicion.

In her 52-page ruling, Frimpong bars immigration agencies  “from conducting detentive stops in this district unless the agent or officer has reasonable suspicion that the person to be stopped is within the United States in violation of U.S. immigration law.”

The order also bars agents from relying solely on factors such as race/ethnicity, speaking with an accent or being at locations such as bus stops, day laborer sites, car washes or agricultural sites as a basis for detaining people.

In a separate ruling, she ordered immigration agencies to make sure detainees get access to attorneys seven days a week.

From the initial June 18 arrests in the city to the order it triggered, many on Monday were looking ahead to what happens next, and reacting to the Trump administration’s decision to appeal.

The wheels began turning on that appeal on Monday, after government lawyers requested a stay on the ruling. They argued the ruling puts the government’s sweeping action at stake by “placing coercive restraints” on enforcement.

If that stay happens, Frimpong’s ruling would be put on hold pending the appeal. And once again, the crackdown in Southern California that Sady’s father experienced first hand at the Pasadena bus stop would re-commence.

From a Pasadena bus stop, raid case ripples

Sady, who requested omitting her last name for safety concerns, found a bigger picture, even as she lamented the impact of federal detention on her father.

“It’s been really hard not having any updates or knowing what’s next,” she said. “What’s happening to my dad isn’t just about one person—it’s something that affects families, communities, and future generations.”

Sady said the last time she spoke to her father, who is being detained at Adelanto ICE Processing Center, on Monday, he told her phone privileges have become irregular and detainees are fighting for food.

“As of now, my dad is doing OK, but not great—his health has been affected,” Sady said. “He had an issue with low blood pressure, and they had to put him on medication because he was at risk of a stroke.”

While it is scary not knowing what’s going to happen next, Sady said she is trying to show her four children “that it’s OK to believe in something bigger, to stand up for what’s right, even when things feel broken. We’re holding on to hope, and we want people to see the bigger picture in all of this.”

That bigger picture was in Pasadena Mayor Victor Gordo’s sights as well.

Speaking during a break while attending a virtual hearing for Rosalina Luna, another Pasadena resident detained by federal agents, Gordo said what is happening to Luna and the three men at that bus stop, is not only unconstitutional but also wrong and immoral.

“It’s not who we are as a country and as a people, and it’s not who we want to be,” Gordo said. “The ruling is detailed, well-reasoned facts and law and should remind us all of the importance of fairness, equity, and due process of law. I am uplifted knowing that at least on the judiciary side, there are bright, reasonable people who understand what it means to protect due process of law and our constitutional principles.”

Luna, a mother of two, was arrested by agents on her way to work at an assisted living facility in Pasadena on June 28.

“She was going to work to care for people who are terminally ill, she’s there, holds their hand, brings them food, cleans their beds, comforts their families. And she’s picked up. She’s not a criminal,” Gordo said. “She’s someone who we all hope one day will be there to comfort us and our families.”

‘Right before our eyes’

Since Friday’s ruling, Gordo has been couching case in historical terms, noting Pasadena has certainly played a historic role in many landmark cases, such as the desegregation of schools in the 1970s.

“The judge correctly and clearly identified ‘roving patrols’ and raids as unlawful and discriminatory,” he said. “If we all think about this, this is the worst of history repeating itself in so many ways and it’s happening right before our very eyes.”

Leaders point to early June as the beginning of that history. That’s when the federal raids began taking place in Los Angeles, fueled by Trump and his administration’s pledge to mass deport the nation’s “worst of the worst” immigrants, in the nation illegally.

The arrests would then spread to surrounding communities, from Home Depot parking lots to car washes, in cities and towns where immigrants make up much of the work force. It would not take long for the unannounced federal raids to chill local economies, as many immigrant workers and their families stayed away from workplaces, medical clinics, businesses.

But the Administration doubled down, federalizing National Guard troops deployed in L.A. to support the mission of federal agents, which in turn have prompted widespread protests in the L.A. area and across the nation, where the immigration sweeps have also commenced.

Amid the tension came the arrests in Pasadena. By July 2, the federal lawsuit was filed in L.A. And then came Friday’s ruling.

The Trump administration pushed back hard on the judge’s ruling in what is now known as Pedro Vasquez Perdomo, et al., v.  Kristi Noem, named for Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and for Perdomo, one of the three detained at the Pasadena bus stop.

In their lawsuit, attorneys for Perdomo, Osorto and Molina allege they were unlawfully stopped or detained by federal agents targeting locations where immigrant workers are traditionally hired. It accused immigration officials of carrying out “roving patrols” and detaining people without warrants and regardless of whether they have actual proof they are in the country legally.

It further alleged that federal agencies, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, engaged in unconstitutional and unlawful immigration enforcement raids by targeting Angelenos based on their perceived race and ethnicity and denying detainees constitutionally mandated due process.

The lawsuit accused the DHS of operating a program of “abducting and disappearing” community members using unlawful arrest tactics, then confining detainees in illegal conditions while denying access to attorneys.

But on Monday, in their motion for a stay of the judge’s Friday order, government officials said the ruling, based on the allegations of the men, would, in effect, stop what they said is President Trump’s right to enforcement the law.

“The district court has entered a sweeping, district-wide injunction placing coercive restraints on lawful immigration enforcement affecting every immigration stop and detention,” the motion states, adding that that the injunction on stops “is inflicting irreparable harm by preventing the Executive from ensuring that immigration laws are enforced … .”

Over the weekend, border czar Tom Homan, on CNN’s “State of the Union” program, was already hinting at the gist of the pushback against the ruling.

He seemed to agree that physical description can’t be the sole factor for reasonable suspicion. But it can be one factor, he said, among others, that could raise reasonable suspicion.

“I can tell you this, that every ICE officer goes through Fourth Amendment training every six months, and is reminded what their authorities are for arrest, detention, and questioning. So, the officers are very well-trained,” he said.

The White House itself has weighed in, echoing Trump administration officials’ pledged to arrest the “worst of the worst.”

“No federal judge has the authority to dictate immigration policy — that authority rests with Congress and the President,” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said. “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.”

Ultimately, expert observers in the case caution that Frimpong’s order does not all-out limit federal enforcement of immigration laws.

“Judge Frimpong’s order does not prevent the federal government from making immigration arrests in the District. It simply orders the Federal government not to violate the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution and detain an individual without reasonable suspicion that the person they stop is violating the law,” said Jean Lantz Reisz, co-director of the USC Immigration Clinic and clinical associate professor of law at the university.

That means agents can’t detain people based on their apparent race or ethnicity, or related solely to their race or ethnicity such as speaking Spanish, or speaking English with an accent, their presence at a particular location and the type of work they do, she added.

Moreover, it’s only temporary, while the court case progresses, and both sides provide more evidence, she said. But she also noted that the judge is not dictating immigration policy, contrary to the White House assessment.

The main function of federal judges is to determine whether certain activity, by the federal government, states or private entities, violates the Constitution or any other federal laws, Lantz Reisz said.

The scope of such decisions by federal district judges is more limited after the U.S. Supreme Court on June 27 limited the ability of lone federal judge make “universal rulings” on executive orders by the president. It was a victory for the Trump administration, seeking to use executive orders to bolster national immigration enforcement.

On Monday, the city of Pico Rivera released a statement supporting the court’s decision, saying it “reinforces the constitutional protections guaranteed to all individuals, regardless of immigration status.”

Attorneys for Los Angeles County and the cities of Los Angeles, Montebello, Monterey Park, Pasadena, Pico Rivera, Santa Monica, West Hollywood and Culver City filed a motion with Frimpong Monday formally asking to join the case as “intervenors” in support of the plaintiffs.

They asked that a hearing on their motion be held Friday.

Meanwhile, the waiting continues for Sady and thousands of detainees.

Many of them just found out that the Trump administration just sharply limited the ability for people facing deportation to be released from immigration detention.

Through a reinterpretation of a provision in immigration law, it could mean months, even years to to a detainee’s detention, according to reports.

“This situation goes beyond immigration status or race,” Sady said Monday, noting that her father has been in the U.S. for 14 years. “It’s about humanity. People leave their home countries not because they want to, but because they’re searching for something better. That doesn’t make them criminals. It makes them brave.”