Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem fiercely criticized a federal judge’s ruling that halted ICE detentions in California unless based on probable cause—labeling the judge’s actions political and asserting policy enforcement lies with the executive and Congress.

Court Blocks Racial & Ethnic-Based ICE Detentions

July 14, 2025: Last week, U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong issued a temporary restraining order stopping ICE from conducting immigration arrests across seven California counties solely based on “race, ethnicity, language or occupation,” and mandating legal counsel be available to detainees

Noem Calls the Ruling “Ridiculous”

Appearing on Fox News Sunday, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem denounced the judge’s decision, calling it “ridiculous” and asserting that ICE operations rely on solid law enforcement principles—not racial profiling

“They’re getting too political. It’s not their job. I hope they can bring some dignity back to the bench.”

She pushed back against accusations of profiling, saying:

“We’ve never targeted individuals based on those qualifications… ICE is out there making sure we get the worst of the worst off the streets.”

DOJ Appeals, Administration Defends Its Actions

The Department of Justice quickly filed an appeal, arguing the judge overstepped by dictating immigration enforcement and that authority lies firmly within the executive branch and Congress.

Noem backed the appeal, reiterating her department’s intent to uphold aggressive enforcement policies despite judicial intervention.

Legal & Political Ramifications

The order challenges aggressive ICE raids, drawing criticism from immigrant advocacy groups accusing the administration of racial profiling

Noem’s comments reflect broader frustration from the Trump team, who believe courts are intruding into policymaking areas.

Final Take

Kristi Noem’s sharp rebuke of the judge highlights growing tensions between the judiciary and the Trump administration over immigration enforcement. As the DOJ appeals and scrutiny grows, this case has become a symbolic flashpoint on racial profiling, separation of powers, and the scope of ICE authority.