LOS ANGELES, CA – The City and County of Los Angeles, alongside a coalition of other municipalities across Southern California, are actively seeking to formally intervene in a federal civil rights lawsuit. The legal action targets the Trump administration, specifically challenging what plaintiffs allege were unconstitutional immigration enforcement activities, including recent raids conducted by federal agents.
The move to join the suit was announced by Los Angeles officials, signaling a unified front among local jurisdictions against federal immigration practices they deem unlawful and invasive. The lawsuit was originally initiated last week by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Southern California.
Origins of the Legal Challenge
The ACLU of Southern California filed the initial complaint on behalf of five individuals directly impacted by the enforcement actions and several prominent immigration advocacy groups. Their lawsuit levels serious accusations against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the federal agency with oversight responsibility for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
The core allegation presented in the original filing is that DHS and its agents have been “unconstitutionally arrested and detained people in order to meet arbitrary arrest quotas set by the Trump administration.” This claim suggests a systemic pressure within the federal immigration apparatus to prioritize numerical arrest targets over the constitutional rights of individuals residing within the United States.
Mohammad Tajsar, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU of Southern California, emphasized the fundamental principles at stake. According to Tajsar, Constitutional protections extend to everyone within the nation’s borders, regardless of their immigration status or racial background. He stated unequivocally that these protections prohibit illegal stops and detentions, asserting that DHS must and will be held accountable for any alleged violations.
Los Angeles and Municipalities Enter the Fray
The decision by the City and County of Los Angeles, along with the other unnamed Southern California municipalities, to seek intervention in the existing lawsuit significantly broadens the scope and potential impact of the legal challenge. The jurisdictions are not merely supporting the original plaintiffs but are seeking to become parties to the case, allowing them to directly present their arguments and evidence before the court.
According to a statement released by Los Angeles City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto, the collective effort by these municipalities is aimed squarely at challenging “unlawful immigration enforcement activities.” Ms. Feldstein Soto highlighted specific concerns motivating their decision to join the suit.
Among the primary allegations raised by the city and county is the federal government’s alleged deliberate targeting of the Los Angeles area and its residents. This targeting, according to the statement, is purportedly based on individuals’ race and ethnicity – a practice that, if proven, would raise significant equal protection concerns under the U.S. Constitution.
Furthermore, the joining jurisdictions contend that the enforcement actions have resulted in the denial of constitutionally-mandated due process to those arrested and detained. Due process rights ensure that individuals are afforded fair treatment and legal procedures, including the right to be informed of charges and to appear before a judge, which plaintiffs allege were circumvented during the challenged raids.
Asserting Local Rights and Sovereignty
City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto elaborated on the legal basis for the municipalities’ intervention during a news conference held on Tuesday, July 9, 2025. She stated that joining the lawsuit is not solely about protecting residents but also about asserting the jurisdictions’ own fundamental rights under the U.S. Constitution.
Specifically, Ms. Feldstein Soto invoked the 10th Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited to the states, to the states respectively, or the people. She argued that the federal immigration enforcement actions, as conducted, infringe upon the local control and inherent authority of municipalities over police powers and community safety within their borders.
The City Attorney delivered a stern message regarding the practices being challenged, emphasizing the urgency of the situation. She unequivocally stated, “These unconstitutional roundups and raids cannot be allowed to continue.” This forceful language underscores the perceived severity of the alleged violations and the municipalities’ determination to halt them through legal means.
Seeking Federal Comment
In the wake of the lawsuit’s filing and the subsequent announcement by Los Angeles and other municipalities, reporting indicates efforts to obtain comment from the federal agencies involved. According to information cited in connection with the case, CNN has reportedly reached out to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for a response regarding the allegations contained within the lawsuit.
As of the latest reports, any official statement or response from DHS regarding the specifics of the lawsuit, the allegations of unconstitutional arrests, arbitrary quotas, or the targeting of residents based on race and ethnicity has not been publicly released. The federal government will have the opportunity to respond to the lawsuit in court filings.
The Path Forward
The action by Los Angeles and the coalition of Southern California municipalities to join the federal civil rights lawsuit against the Trump administration marks a significant escalation in the legal challenges to federal immigration enforcement tactics. By seeking to intervene, these local governments aim to protect their residents, assert their jurisdictional rights under the Constitution, and hold federal agencies accountable for alleged misconduct.
The case is expected to navigate complex legal terrain, involving questions of constitutional rights, federal authority versus local sovereignty, and the legality of specific immigration enforcement operations. The outcome of this lawsuit could potentially influence future federal immigration enforcement practices and the relationship between federal agents and local communities across the nation.
