Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Immigration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pico Rivera joins Los Angeles lawsuit seeking injunction on ICE courthouse arrests; hearing scheduled Thursday
Summary
City Attorney said Pico Rivera joined a multi‑city filing that asks a federal court to block certain ICE courthouse arrest policies; Munger Tolles is providing pro bono representation and the hearing is scheduled for Thursday at 10 a.m.
Get email alerts on the Legal Immigration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The City of Pico Rivera joined a multi‑city legal filing challenging recent Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) courthouse arrest practices, the city attorney told the City Council on July 8.
City Attorney Mr. Glassman said the filing, made by the City of Los Angeles with several intervening cities, "was submitted by the City of Los Angeles and numerous other cities seeking primarily injunctive relief against the federal government, the Homeland Security, the ICE, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement divisions." He listed participating jurisdictions that included the City of Pico Rivera, the County of Los Angeles, Culver City, Montebello, Monterey Park, Pasadena, Santa Monica and West Hollywood.
Glassman said the pleading asks the federal court to declare that the defendants’ actions violate the Fourth and Tenth Amendments and the Administrative Procedure Act and to enter preliminary and permanent injunctions to stop further courthouse arrests as described in the complaint. "The interveners respectfully request the court enter judgment in their favor and grant the following relief," he read, describing the requested declarations and injunctions.
Glassman told the council the case is scheduled for a hearing on Thursday at 10:00 a.m. in federal court in Los Angeles and that the city’s participation is being handled pro bono by the law firm Munger Tolles and Olson. "Munger Tolles and Olson are doing it pro bono," he said, adding the city would not incur attorney fees for the firm’s work though expert or other litigation costs might arise and could be allocated differently among plaintiffs.
Council members asked procedural questions about the pleadings, case law cited and potential costs. Glassman said he had reviewed the pleadings and that the next steps could include an appeal if an unfavorable ruling is issued; he also offered to circulate the complaint to council members and to convene a closed‑session discussion if needed.
Public commenter Fernando Islas addressed immigration enforcement during public comment and said he condemned ICE actions in Los Angeles County, which he described as profiling and aggressive enforcement. His remarks provided context for community concerns the council and staff said they are monitoring.
Why it matters: the lawsuit seeks to limit federal enforcement practices at and around state courthouses — a matter of immediate concern to county and city officials and to residents who said they fear targeted enforcement. The scheduled hearing could produce an injunction or other orders affecting enforcement practices in the region.
What’s next: the case is set for a federal‑court hearing Thursday at 10 a.m.; the city attorney will circulate the pleadings to the council and city staff said they will continue to coordinate with legal counsel and regional partners.

