What is the procedural posture of Perdomo v. Noem
Executive summary
The litigation styled Vasquez-Perdomo v. Noem originated in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California as case No. 2:25‑cv‑05605 and was brought by individual workers and advocacy organizations challenging DHS enforcement practices in Los Angeles; the Supreme Court on September 8, 2025 granted the Government’s emergency application and stayed a lower‑court order that had restrained certain immigration raids while the appeal proceeds [1] [2] [3]. The case is now active on appeal—with substantial briefing and docket activity in the Ninth Circuit and a live Supreme Court docket entry (25A169)—so the immediate effect is that the district court’s injunction is paused and federal agents may resume the contested practices pending further appellate resolution [4] [5] [6].
1. How the case began and what plaintiffs sought
Plaintiffs filed suit in early July 2025—named individuals including Pedro Vasquez Perdomo and several organizations such as United Farm Workers, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Los Angeles Worker Center Network, and Immigrant Defenders Law Center—alleging that DHS engaged in constitutionally unlawful mass enforcement raids and roving patrols that relied on factors like location, worksite, accent, or perceived race and that detained people without meaningful access to counsel [1] [2].
2. The district court’s relief and its scope
The district court in Los Angeles issued emergency relief in July 2025—a temporary restraining order and related injunction that blocked the government from continuing the specific enforcement practices challenged by plaintiffs while the case moved forward—finding that the combination of location‑based and demographic factors did not, as the court concluded, amount to constitutionally adequate reasonable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment [6] [2].
3. Immediate appellate posture and Ninth Circuit activity
The Government appealed and the case was docketed in the Ninth Circuit as 25‑4312; the Ninth Circuit record and opinion record central factual and legal disputes about whether plaintiffs face a real and immediate threat sufficient to support injunctive relief and engaged with precedent on stops and reasonable suspicion [5]. Docket records show active appellate filings, mediations, and motions about stays and whether lower‑court proceedings should be paused while the appeal and parallel litigation continue [7].
4. The Supreme Court’s emergency intervention: a stay
On September 8, 2025, the Supreme Court granted the Government’s application for a stay—Justice Kagan referred the application to the Court and the stay paused the district court’s July order pending disposition of the appeal—effectively allowing federal agents to resume the contested raids while appellate review proceeds [3] [4]. The Court’s order and accompanying opinions engaged with the unusual posture of emergency relief in major immigration‑enforcement matters and included concurring and dissenting commentary about the proper role of the judiciary in policing immigration policy [3] [4].
5. Where the case stands now and practical consequences
As of the latest public docketing and reporting, the Supreme Court’s stay remains in effect while the Ninth Circuit appeal proceeds and the district court docket continues to show status reports, motions to stay by parties, and mediation activity—meaning the lower‑court injunction is not currently operative, the appeal is live, and the litigation remains ongoing across multiple federal fora [7] [8] [5]. Public filings note that some original pleadings and evidentiary materials have not been released publicly, which limits full outside scrutiny of the record [2].
6. Competing narratives, stakes, and the record’s limits
Advocacy groups and civil‑rights organizations sharply criticized the Supreme Court’s stay as permitting race‑ or location‑based policing to resume and warned of harms to communities, while the Government framed the issue as an urgent need to enforce immigration law and questioned whether the lower court’s factual findings supported a nationwide restraint—both perspectives appear throughout the public materials, but external analysis is constrained by redacted or unavailable case documents and by the fact that the Supreme Court’s action was interlocutory rather than a final merits decision [9] [1] [3]. The procedural posture is therefore interlocutory appeal plus a Supreme Court stay; eventual resolution will depend on the Ninth Circuit’s ruling and any further review the Supreme Court chooses to grant [5] [6].