Why It Matters
A federal lawsuit in California is challenging immigration enforcement practices in Los Angeles, with court records documenting that Border Patrol agents allegedly used derogatory language during raids. The case raises questions about the conduct of federal law enforcement officers and potential civil rights violations during heightened immigration enforcement operations.
What Happened
Plaintiffs in the case Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem filed a motion for preliminary injunction on Monday before U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong. The lawsuit centers on allegations that immigration agents used racial slurs during summer 2025 street raids in Los Angeles.
According to court documents, body camera footage captured a Border Patrol agent at a Hollywood Home Depot saying, “I’m pretty sure he’s wet he was just sitting in that minivan.” The term “wet” is a derogatory reference to migrants. Text messages from agents also contained references to “tonks”—another slur allegedly derived from the sound of a heavy object striking a migrant’s skull—with one message reading, “Yeah, just plug us in wherever you see some tonks and we’ll jump out,” and another describing “tonks everywhere selling food.”
A deposition of one immigration agent revealed the officer identified a target of enforcement through language suggesting racial profiling, describing a person as an “older Hispanic male” based on what the agent deemed suspicious appearance. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency issued guidance in 2019 stating that the term “tonk” is inappropriate for official use.
The case also references a May 2025 directive from ICE headquarters instructing field officers to “turn the creativity knob up to 11” and increase arrests of individuals apprehended incidentally during operations targeting specific subjects.
By the Numbers
1,400 — Border Patrol agents involved in Los Angeles immigration operations in the past year
More than half — agents who reported using personal cell phones during enforcement activities
88 — agents who volunteered to submit personal phones for forensic imaging
3 — government phones being imaged every two weeks by authorities
200-300 — estimated remaining government phones pending forensic examination
Approximately 4 years — projected timeline to complete phone imaging at the current rate
Phone Records and Discovery Disputes
A central dispute in the litigation involves access to communications between agents. More than half of the 1,400 Border Patrol agents involved in Los Angeles operations reported using personal cell phones, complicating efforts to obtain records. While 88 agents volunteered to turn in personal phones for forensic imaging, none have been processed as of the motion filing. Government authorities are imaging three government phones every two weeks, with an estimated 200-300 government phones remaining. At this pace, full compliance would extend close to four years.
Zoom Out
The litigation emerges during a period of intensified immigration enforcement at the federal level. Questions about the conduct of immigration agents during sweeps have surfaced in other jurisdictions as well. The case reflects broader tensions between immigration enforcement operations and allegations of racial profiling or civil rights violations. The use of derogatory terminology by law enforcement—and the discovery of such language in official records—has become a focal point in civil rights litigation nationwide.
Mayra Joachín, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, stated that the evidence suggests “there’s enough to suggest that this is a system-wide practice of identifying people through racial slurs.”
What’s Next
Judge Frimpong will consider the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. The U.S. Supreme Court previously stayed an earlier temporary restraining order in September, suggesting the case may involve appellate oversight. Discovery efforts, particularly surrounding the forensic imaging of phones, will likely remain contested given the extended timeline and disputes over which communications must be disclosed.