A federal court in California on Friday barred the Trump administration from conducting immigration enforcement raids based on the “apparent race or ethnicity” of the people being targeted.

In a 52-page order, U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, a Joe Biden appointee, granted two temporary restraining orders: one for individuals who allege their constitutional rights have been violated by deportation dragnets in Southern California; the second for attorneys who claim they are being blocked from meeting and conferring with their clients – also in violation of the Constitution.

The judge took the government to task for, in her view, denying the reality of the situation in the counties of Los Angeles and Orange.

“[T]he federal government agrees: Roving patrols without reasonable suspicion violate the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution and denying access to lawyers violates the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution,” the order reads. “What the federal government would have this Court believe-in the face of a mountain of evidence presented in this case—is that none of this is actually happening.”

Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox

The court later rubbished those efforts as presenting a series of simple questions – which were easy enough to answer.

The order offsets those questions to highlight them:

Do all individuals regardless of immigration status-share in the rights guaranteed by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution? Yes, they do.

Is it illegal to conduct roving patrols which identify people based upon race alone, aggressively question them, and then detain them without a warrant, without their consent, and without reasonable suspicion that they are without status? Yes, it is.

Is it unlawful to prevent people from having access to lawyers who can help them in immigration court? Yes, it is.

During the first week of June, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents began a series of increasingly widespread enforcement actions in the broader Los Angeles area. Golden State protesters responded, and the situation quickly became tense – with President Donald Trump seizing command of California”s National Guard regiment on June 7 in an effort to quell the protests.

Since then, militarized deportation sweeps have continued apace.

“Various places have been targeted by federal agents,” the court explains. “In one instance, the agents approached and prevented a non-white individual from walking away but not those who appeared to be Caucasians.”

The underlying lawsuit in the case was filed earlier this month.

The court credited the plaintiffs’ framing of those sweeps as more persuasive than the defenses advanced by the federal government.

“Defendants have a policy and practice of effectuating warrantless arrests without making an individualized flight risk determination,” the order goes on. “Defendants also have a policy and practice of not identifying themselves or explaining the basis for an arrest upon taking someone into custody. Agents and officers often show up masked, without any visible badges or insignia indicating what agency they work for, and have refused to identify themselves when asked.”

Frimpong, in ruling for the plaintiffs, also barred the government from relying on several other factors currently used by federal agents as the basis for their large-scale immigration sweeps.

The injunction for the detained plaintiffs bars ICE agents from relying on a person’s use of Spanish or “English with an accent” for a detention stop. The government also cannot use anyone’s “[p]resence at a particular location” or the “type of work” they do to articulate reasonable suspicion for such a stop.

In the injunction for the legal aid plaintiffs, Frimpong ordered the government to allow attorneys access to the massive, impromptu immigrant detention center in the basement of the downtown Los Angeles federal building – which is known as “Room B-18.”

The court additionally denied the government a pre-requested stay of the injunctions on the grounds that they failed to make “any showing that such a stay is warranted.”

“The Court does not find prejudice to Defendants,” Frimpong mused. “[C]ompliance with the Fourth Amendment is nothing new, contrary to Defendants’ claims. Complying with the law does not impose harm.”