Federal immigration agents in the Los Angeles area are accused of using racist slurs and carrying out immigration stops that unlawfully targeted Latino people based on their appearance, according to a new court filing.

The allegations are contained in a motion for a preliminary injunction filed Monday in the closely watched case Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem, in which plaintiffs are asking a federal judge to block what they describe as warrantless stops of people who "appear Latino and low-income or working-class."

The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California said the enforcement practices have continued across the Central District of California even after highly publicized street raids ended last summer.

...

The filing also includes body camera footage in which one Department of Homeland Security agent is allegedly heard telling another, "Yeah, just plug us in wherever you see some tonks."

According to the ACLU, "tonks" is a derogatory term referring to the sound of a flashlight striking a migrant's head. Other agents were allegedly heard speculating whether people were "wet," which the ACLU said is a racist slur derived from the term "wetback."

...

The plaintiffs argue the stops violate the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures and the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection, alleging agents relied on race rather than individualized suspicion.

"Our communities have been denouncing foul play from day one," Angelica Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, said in a statement. "The evidence doesn't lie: these arrests were never about safety, they were about skin color."

The lawsuit was filed in July 2025 by residents, workers and immigrant advocacy groups, who allege Homeland Security agents carried out unconstitutional stops and detentions driven by enforcement quotas. Although Judge Frimpong initially restricted some enforcement actions, the Supreme Court later paused that order while the case continues.

no comments (yet)

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
there doesn't seem to be anything here
9 comments in c/politics@lemmy.world view that post
[–] 37 points 3 months ago (1 child)

Accused? Isn't racial profiling basically their job description?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 19 points 3 months ago

    Explosive court ruling? More like completely obvious and expected behavior.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago

    You don't say! 🙄

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago

    I'm shocked!!!

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago*

    "shocked Pikachu.jpg"

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago

    It's good to have definitive data but it is also tempting to say "no shit".

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    Nobody could have expected this

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    The thing the supreme court ruled was A-OK is what they're doing? Shocker.

  • source
  • 5 comments in c/news@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 8 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    So, let's just start with the "Fuck ICE" because its obligatory at this juncture.

    But aren't they allowed to do racial profiling, thanks to Kavanaugh Stops? America has legalized that horrific practice. And while racist slurs ARE deeply unprofessional to be sure, and revealing of the hatred at the core of their actions, - these guys SHOOT people dead in the street, and starve/beat detainees in tiny cells. Also, when doing their "job" correctly, they end up deporting innocent people to countries they've never lived in. They kill and torture at worst, and ruin innocent lives at best. Is America really so ass-backwards someone is going to get some of them in trouble for "no-no words"? Please tell me this is a media problem and someone, somewhere is actually doing something useful, I just don't get to hear about it.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago*

    Sorta. That ruling allowed them to use race as a criteria, but not the criteria for stopping someone. So the ACLU is seeking to prove that racial profiling is the primary and often only sorting criteria ICE is using, which is currently not allowed as far as we know (or it will force the courts to just admit that racial profiling is 100% open season now).

    They're also calling them tonks, which isn't so much a racial slur but refers to the sound a flashlight makes when they hit someone over the head with it. It's not just that they're no-no words, it's that the language they are using is very much linked to the violence they are also doing.

    There are ongoing cases about the Pretti / Good murders also at a minimum, so it's not an either-or situation.

    That's not to say that any of this is good or acceptable, mind you. The fact that the country didn't absolutely grind to a halt over all of this is a massive failure, of course.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago

    "Explosive court filing" has gotta be one of the oxymorons of all time.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child)

    Is it an 'explosive' filing if it's obvious that the kind of people signing up to be ICE agents are racists?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • 4 comments in c/politics@lemmy.world view that post
    [+] 5 points 3 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago*

    The case is Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem. Previously in this same case, the Supreme Court seemed to indicate that it was legal for ICE to stop and question people based on their skin color. (They thereby created a new category of stop called the Kavanaugh Stop).

    Quoting Justice Kavanaugh:

    Here, those circumstances include: that there is an extremely high number and percentage of illegal immigrants in the Los Angeles area; that those individuals tend to gather in certain locations to seek daily work; that those individuals often work in certain kinds of jobs, such as day labor, landscaping, agriculture, and construction, that do not require paperwork and are therefore especially attractive to illegal immigrants; and that many of those illegally in the Los Angeles area come from Mexico or Central America and do not speak much English. To be clear, apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion; under this Court's case law regarding immigration stops, however, it can be a "relevant factor" when considered along with other salient factors. ... Importantly, reasonable suspicion means only that immigration officers may briefly stop the individual and inquire about immigration status. If the person is a U.S. citizen or otherwise lawfully in the United States, that individual will be free to go after the brief encounter. Only if the person is illegally in the United States may the stop lead to further immigration proceedings.

    As a legal position, this shit is antithetical to the American way of life, and it's also deeply unrealistic. These things are not "brief encounters". This opinion would legalize "papers please" style enforcement for brown people.

    Now, the Kavanaugh Stop is not currently the law of the land, because Kavanaugh was writing in a concurrence only. He didn't have a full five vote majority behind these abhorrent statements.

    So this is the news: Everyone knows that ICE are racist cunts. The ACLU is doing the work to prove it in court. And hopefully it will lead to something that doesn't cement the Kavanaugh Stop as case law.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Unless it significantly says existing public opinion and creates action I wouldn't call it explosive?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    I agree that the facts in this article are not excessively interesting. It's just garden variety racism.

    The real audience for this prelim injunction is not the public, however. It's the 9 justices of the supreme court. In particular, there are 2-3 justices who appear to get all their facts from Fox News. And the evidence introduced for this prelim injunction is the ACLU's primary opportunity to challenge the Fox News "facts" with "alternative" facts, when this case goes back up to the supreme court.

  • source
  • parent