A significant appeal has been submitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concerning federal immigration stops and arrests in Southern California. Formerly known as “Perdomo v. Noem,” the case is now titled “Vasquez Perdomo v. Mullin.” It challenges the methods used by immigration officials in conducting stops and arrests. The Ninth Circuit officially opened the appeal on October 16, 2026, following a notice from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California regarding the appeal.

“The very fabric of our democracy and the legitimacy of all levels of government come from this premise — that we are all protected against arbitrary, indiscriminate, and widespread surveillance and detention by any governmental agency.” – Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266, 273-274 (1973). 

The case is named “Vasquez Perdomo v. Scott” (A short title for the appeal; it does not rename the lawsuit), which refers to Rodney S. Scott, the commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, one of the federal officials involved in the case. The appeals court has placed this case on its schedule for urgent review. The appellant’s opening brief is due by November 13, 2026, and the appellees have until December 11, 2026, to respond. If the appellant misses these deadlines, the appeal could be dismissed automatically.

The specific ruling that is being challenged has not been publicly disclosed. However, the appeal comes after U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong issued a preliminary injunction on September 2, 2026. This order prevented federal agents from making warrantless immigration arrests without examining each case to determine if an individual is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained. The judge also mandated that federal agents must officially document the circumstances of these arrests.

Furthermore, the judge issued another injunction prohibiting stops based on whether individuals appear Latino or from working-class backgrounds. This order was initially filed as a sealed document but was made public on October 23, a week after the appeal was submitted.

The history of this case dates back to June 20, 2025, when a petition was filed after several individuals were arrested while waiting for work in Pasadena. These individuals had been detained in a federal building in downtown Los Angeles. The plaintiffs, which include Pedro Vasquez Perdomo, the Los Angeles Worker Center Network, and several labor organizations, expanded their lawsuit shortly after the initial filing.

As the case progressed, U.S. District Judge Frimpong issued temporary orders to prevent stops based solely on race, ethnicity, or language. She also ensured that individuals being detained would have access to legal representation. Although the Ninth Circuit declined to halt one of the orders, the U.S. Supreme Court intervened and stayed it on September 8, 2025.

Significant developments continued in 2026, including the judge denying most of the government’s attempts to dismiss the case and recognizing a new equal protection claim. On July 28, 2026, the judge found the government in civil contempt for not complying with orders related to the case, resulting in a daily financial penalty until it obeyed.

Local governments have also been involved, with Los Angeles County and several cities supporting the effort to challenge these immigration stops. This collaboration highlights ongoing concerns related to immigration enforcement practices in the area.

Fullerton participated only as a friend of the court (amicus curiae), not as a party in the case. It joined Costa Mesa, Goleta, and Santa Paula in submitting an amicus brief in support of the motion for the injunction against the stops. The judge accepted the brief on September 16, 2026, and the cities formally filed it on October 8.

An amicus provides the court with its perspectives and information. In this brief, the cities outlined the impact of the enforcement on their residents, businesses, and police departments.

One excerpt from the court filings states that a report published on July 22, 2026, by the UCLA Latino Policy and Politics Institute highlights that enforcement operations by defendants in Los Angeles had a “chilling effect” on local Latino businesses, significantly disrupting operations in or near enforcement areas. The report, titled “The Cost of Fear: The Impacts of Immigration Enforcement on Small Businesses and Latino Entrepreneurs in LA County,” indicates that Los Angeles County, with a population of 4.76 million, is comprised of nearly half Latinos, who own more than a quarter of local businesses. Additionally, the report found that negative impacts on businesses persisted even a year later due to ongoing enforcement and community fear.

Furthermore, amici have received reports that some community members are afraid to leave their homes, even to take their children to school. This fear has extended its impact to educational institutions. Studies show that immigration sweeps lead to increased school absences and negatively affect children’s educational outcomes. For instance, a Stanford study found that school absences increased by 22% in California’s Central Valley, where enforcement activities were taking place.

“Amici are all cities that pride themselves on being homes for everybody, including immigrants, and on providing safe, secure, and thriving communities for residents, visitors, workers, and businesses. Defendants’ unlawful operations have directly undermined these goals. As well as being unconstitutionally implemented, Defendants’ operations have had significant negative impacts on some of Amici’s communities.”

Key Dates:

• – December 11, 2026 – Deadline for appellees’ answering brief
• – November 13, 2026 – Deadline for appellant’s opening brief
• – October 23, 2026 – Amended injunction made public
• – October 16, 2026 – Appeal officially opened
• – September 2, 2026 – Preliminary injunction issued
• – July 28, 2026 – Government found in civil contempt
• – July 22, 2026 – Case renamed “Vasquez Perdomo v. Mullin“
• – January 9, 2026 – Government appeals previous injunction
• – November 13, 2025 – Attorney-access order granted
• – September 8, 2025 – Supreme Court stays earlier restraining order
• – July 11, 2025 – Temporary restraining orders issued
• – July 2, 2025** – Amended complaint filed
• – June 20, 2025 – Case originally filed
• – June 18, 2025 – The arrests took place in Pasadena and started the lawsuit. Three of the named plaintiffs were detained that morning: Pedro Vasquez Perdomo, Carlos Alexander Osorto and Isaac Villegas Molina.

What happened, according to court records

• Where they were: All three are Latino day laborers. They were at a bus stop, waiting for work. One news account places it across from a Winchell’s Donuts on Orange Grove Boulevard, but that detail comes from a secondary source (VisaVerge), not the court records.
• The operation: Agents in unmarked vehicles detained them during what the government called a “targeted operation.” The judge’s October 23 order says the stop was blocks away from the address of the person agents were actually looking for. It also says officers never asked the three men about that person and never went back to search for him after the arrests. An ICE deportation officer involved, Corey Clement, testified that his supervisor knew how the operation was conducted and had no concerns.
• The men’s accounts: In sworn declarations, Osorto said at least four men in masks and civilian clothes, carrying guns, ran at them without identifying themselves or showing badges. Villegas Molina said an armed, masked man yelled: “Don’t run.” He said the man asked for ID, which he showed (a California driver’s license), then handcuffed him and put him in an unmarked vehicle without saying he was an immigration agent.
• Detention: The men were taken to B-18, the basement holding area in the downtown Los Angeles federal building. They described it as crowded and unsanitary, with limited access to necessities and medical care, and said they were denied phone calls.
• The government’s position: At the September 24, 2026 hearing, government lawyers argued that Vasquez Perdomo and Osorto fled when agents appeared. The judge wasn’t persuaded. She said any attempt to move away came only after unidentified armed men ran at them. She also found no evidence that Villegas Molina fled at all.
• Afterward: The habeas petition was filed two days later, on June 20, 2025. Osorto, who had serious health problems, was released on July 30, 2025, on a $5,000 bond with an ankle monitor.

Examining the impact of immigration enforcement on Latino businesses