Updates to our Terms of Use

We are updating our Terms of Use. Please carefully review the updated Terms before proceeding to our website.

Wednesday, April 23, 2025

View Back issues

ICE must provide lawyer access for detainees in LA, judge says

The judge agreed with legal aid groups that ICE had prevented lawyers from meeting privately with detainees held in the basement of a federal building in downtown LA.

LOS ANGELES (CN) — A Los Angeles federal judge on Friday ordered U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to provide lawyers with better access to detainees held in the basement of a downtown government building.

U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong issued a preliminary injunction requiring ICE to permit lawyers to visit the facility at least eight hours a day on weekdays and four hours a day on weekends. Additionally, the agency must provide rooms where the lawyers can privately meet with detainees.

The judge, a Joe Biden appointee, indicated at a hearing last month that she would issue the preliminary injunction requested by the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights and the Immigrant Defenders Law Center. But she didn’t issue a final order at the time, saying she wanted to consider additional evidence from the government.

Now, though, “the court has examined all of the new evidence presented by both sides and decides once again that the federal government is partially blocking access to lawyers,” Frimpong said in her decision. “Once again, the court is ordering the federal government to stop — this time for the rest of this lawsuit.”

The judge agreed with the legal aid groups that ICE had repeatedly closed visiting hours at the downtown facility without warning, insisted on keeping the doors of meeting rooms open even when lawyers were trying to have private conversations with detainees and had not allowed detainees to make confidential phone calls with lawyers.

“Today, the court affirmed that the Constitution does not stop at the doors of a detention center," said Mark Rosenbaum, an attorney representing the organizations. “By granting this preliminary injunction, the judge made clear that the government cannot lock people up and cut them off from their lawyers.”

The Justice Department didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

The judge had previously issued two temporary restraining orders over the agency’s tactics.

That came as ICE unleashed roving patrols on Southern California. At bus stops, carwashes, tow yards and Home Depot parking lots, masked agents in unmarked cars stopped and detained local residents including U.S. citizens who looked Latino and were dressed like laborers.

One temporary restraining order barred ICE from apprehending people based only on their work, appearance, language or location unless there was a reasonable suspicion that they are in the country without proper authorization. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the feds’ request to stay that temporary restraining order, but the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in in September and did just that.

The second temporary restraining order, which Frimpong issued in July, pertained to detainees’ right to counsel under the Fifth Amendment.

She ordered ICE to allow lawyers access to people held at the “B-18” facility in downtown LA at least eight hours a day during weekdays and four hours a day on weekends and holidays. She also ordered ICE to notify lawyers ahead of time when the facility would be closed to them.

In their request for a preliminary injunction, which offers a remedy for the duration of the litigation, the legal aid groups claim the Trump administration has ignored the judge’s order.

“Defendants reacted with a metaphorical thumb of the nose,” the organization said in their July 28 filing. “They promised that none of the government’s operations ‘are going to change,’ have closed B-18 to legal visits without notice as recently as July 26, 2025, and have ignored the court’s directive regarding unmonitored attorney-client calls entirely.”

At last month’s hearing, Justice Department attorney Jonathan Ross argued that the plaintiffs’ evidence in support of their bid for a preliminary injunction was out of date. He contended that since at least since Sept. 10, the government had been meeting the requirements set by the judge.

Categories / Civil Rights, Courts, Immigration

Subscribe to our free newsletters

Our weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.

Loading...