On Friday, July 11, U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong issued a temporary restraining order restricting the use of “roving” immigration enforcement operations by federal agents in Los Angeles and six surrounding counties. The order applies to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and sets specific limits on how agents may conduct arrests during ongoing immigration enforcement actions in the region.

The court’s ruling prohibits ICE agents from initiating arrests based solely on an individual’s physical appearance, language, accent, or place of employment, such as day laborer sites, construction zones, or car washes. The judge determined that such criteria do not meet the legal threshold for reasonable suspicion.

Under the order, ICE officers are required to base any investigative stops or arrests on clearly defined, articulable facts that suggest an immigration law violation. The ruling also imposes procedural requirements regarding the treatment of detainees. ICE must provide individuals in custody with access to legal counsel and telephones for a minimum of eight hours per day on weekdays and four hours per day on weekends.

Judge Frimpong’s decision cited protections under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process under the law. The court found that the existing enforcement practices potentially violated these constitutional provisions, prompting the issuance of the temporary restraining order pending further legal proceedings.

The Case for the Judge’s Order

From a conservative standpoint—especially one that honors both law and liberty—there’s a lot to like about the principle behind this ruling, even if the timing and context raise eyebrows.

Biblical Justice Requires Due Process

Scripture consistently affirms that justice must be impartial and universally applied. As Exodus 12:49 declares, “One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.” This principle, echoed throughout both Old and New Testaments, reinforces that righteousness is not contingent on status, origin, or appearance.

The biblical mandate calls for just treatment of all individuals, not based on external attributes but on truth and equity. Leviticus 19:15 also warns, “Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.” The emphasis is not on excusing wrongdoing, but on ensuring that justice is pursued with integrity, measured by actions, not assumptions.

In this context, the court’s order to restrict immigration stops that rely on racial profiling or vague characteristics reflects a foundational moral principle: justice must be anchored in evidence and fairness. Upholding the rule of law means insisting that those enforcing it do so without bias, prejudice, or partiality, principles deeply rooted in God’s standards for lawful authority.

Constitutional Conservatism Is Still Conservatism

At the heart of true conservatism is a commitment to the U.S. Constitution, not just in theory, but in practice. It’s the supreme law of the land, the framework that secures both our freedoms and our responsibilities as a nation under God.

Conservative values are not about unchecked power, even when wielded by agencies we support. They’re about limited government, rule of law, and accountability. The Constitution sets the boundaries for what government can and cannot do, including how it enforces immigration laws.

When any branch or agency begins to operate outside those boundaries—especially if due process is ignored or individual rights are trampled—it’s not strength, it’s a slippery slope toward authoritarianism. That’s not conservatism; that’s lawlessness wearing a badge.

This ruling does not abolish ICE’s authority or impede its ability to carry out legitimate immigration enforcement. Instead, it serves as a reminder that all government actions must remain tethered to constitutional principles. A truly conservative government doesn’t fear judicial oversight, it respects it. Because when we protect the Constitution, we’re not weakening the nation, we’re preserving it.

Good Policing Requires Smart Policing

Effective law enforcement isn’t just about being aggressive; it’s about being accurate. When authorities detain individuals based primarily on where they happen to be standing, what language they’re speaking, or how they look, they’re not demonstrating strength, they’re revealing a lack of strategy.

Public safety is best served when enforcement is guided by intelligence, evidence, and specific indicators of wrongdoing. Targeted operations that rely on credible leads and verifiable information not only increase the likelihood of apprehending those actually violating the law but also build public trust and conserve resources. Every unnecessary detention not only wastes time and manpower, it diverts attention away from genuine threats.

Moreover, indiscriminate sweeps can undermine community cooperation, making it harder for agents to gather tips, track criminal activity, or work with local organizations. When enforcement is precise, it protects the innocent, holds the guilty accountable, and upholds the integrity of our legal system. Anything less is not just ineffective, it risks becoming unjust.

The Case Against the Judge’s Order

Now, we can’t ignore the flip side, and there are legitimate concerns about how this ruling could gum up the gears of immigration enforcement.

Slowing Down Enforcement

President Trump’s administration is actively pursuing a firm strategy to reestablish control over America’s southern border. Central to that mission is the work of ICE agents who are tasked with identifying and removing individuals who pose a threat to public safety or who are in clear violation of immigration laws.

However, there is concern among enforcement advocates that increased procedural requirements—such as those imposed by this court ruling—could hinder the speed and efficiency of field operations. In fast-moving environments, where agents must make rapid decisions, added legal thresholds may introduce delays that allow potentially dangerous individuals to evade apprehension.

The concern isn’t merely bureaucratic; it’s operational. When enforcement teams are required to document and justify every step with narrowly defined criteria, the process becomes slower and more complex. This could lead to fewer arrests, more missed opportunities, and a diminished ability to carry out coordinated operations that rely on timing and mobility.

Supporters of stronger immigration enforcement argue that without practical flexibility on the ground, ICE’s mission becomes harder to fulfill. The challenge, then, is striking a balance: ensuring constitutional compliance without paralyzing the very system designed to protect the nation’s borders and uphold its immigration laws.

Courts Overstepping Boundaries?

Some legal and policy critics argue that this ruling reflects a broader pattern of judicial overreach where courts increasingly step into the domain of the executive branch, particularly in matters of immigration enforcement. Their concern is that decisions like this one risk disrupting the constitutional balance of powers by allowing federal judges to impose restrictions on how the executive carries out its lawful duties.

In this view, the danger isn’t just about one ruling in Los Angeles, it’s about the precedent it may set. If individual district judges can impose sweeping limitations on federal agencies based on regional lawsuits, it opens the door for a patchwork of judicial restrictions that vary from district to district. This could effectively tie the hands of federal officers in some areas while allowing full enforcement in others, undermining national consistency in immigration policy.

Critics also point out that immigration enforcement has long been recognized as a core federal responsibility. Allowing the judiciary to dictate operational procedures—especially in the midst of a national immigration crackdown—could embolden further legal challenges designed not to uphold the Constitution, but to obstruct enforcement altogether.

The tension here is between judicial oversight and executive autonomy. While the courts have a duty to ensure that constitutional rights are protected, critics argue that this role must not evolve into judicial micromanagement of law enforcement strategy. Otherwise, the federal government risks losing the coherence and authority necessary to carry out immigration policy effectively across all states.

DHS Denial of Profiling Claims

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) responded swiftly and firmly to the court’s ruling, strongly rejecting the accusations that ICE engaged in racial profiling. In official statements, DHS described the claims as “categorically FALSE,” asserting that their agents conduct operations based on intelligence and lawful procedures, not on appearance, language, or ethnicity.

If DHS’s position is supported by internal records, operational data, and case documentation, it raises a critical question: is this ruling addressing demonstrable constitutional violations, or reacting to broader public perception and anecdotal accounts? Judicial intervention based on isolated complaints or public pressure, rather than a consistent pattern of documented misconduct, can risk undermining the credibility of both law enforcement and the judiciary.

Furthermore, DHS maintains that its enforcement operations target individuals with known immigration violations or criminal histories, guided by vetted intelligence. If this is substantiated, it challenges the notion that ICE actions in Southern California were driven by discriminatory profiling rather than legal mandate.

This tension underscores a fundamental issue: the need for transparency and factual clarity. If ICE’s conduct is indeed lawful and supported by verifiable evidence, the court’s decision may reflect more of a response to political climate than constitutional necessity. On the other hand, if credible patterns of abuse are uncovered, then oversight is warranted. Either way, the truth must be established through a thorough and objective review, not assumption or speculation.

Conclusion: Justice with Integrity

We are a nation built on both law and grace. As a Christian conservative, I believe firmly in the rule of law, national sovereignty, and the responsibility of government to protect its citizens. But I also believe that justice must be tempered with righteousness, and that every human being—whether citizen or sojourner—is made in the image of God and deserving of due process.

The Left often paints any form of immigration enforcement as heartless or xenophobic, while some on the Right have, at times, excused overreach in the name of “toughness.” Neither extreme reflects the biblical or constitutional standard. Both lawlessness and injustice are enemies of liberty.

President Trump’s administration is doing the vital work of restoring order at the border and reclaiming America’s right to control who enters and who stays. That mission is critical. Without borders, we don’t have a country. But how we enforce those borders matters. A just government must never confuse authority with license.

This ruling from Judge Frimpong doesn’t defund or dismantle ICE. It doesn’t throw open the floodgates or erase the law. What it does is remind federal agencies that their methods must be as lawful as their mission. It draws a boundary, one we shouldn’t fear. Boundaries are biblical. Guardrails are wise.

The evil to resist here is not enforcement itself, it’s enforcement without accountability. It’s not strength to trample civil liberties in the name of security. That’s how empires fall and tyrannies rise. True strength lies in upholding justice with integrity, in defending both our sovereignty and our soul as a nation.

I support ICE. I support strong borders. I support President Trump’s efforts to restore order to our immigration system. But I also expect our government to live up to the same law it enforces.

This is the balance we must strike: secure the border, uphold the Constitution, and treat every person with the dignity that reflects our values as Americans and our faith as Christians.

Let’s keep our borders secure, our Constitution honored, and our conscience clear before God and country.