Dear IMLA Immigration Working Group: Thank you for those that attended today's call. Here are a few additional updates: 1. Based on this announcement, it looks like HHS won't enforce the PRWORA changes against any entity (including those not involved in the lawsuit) through September 10, 2025: https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/prwora-hhs-bans-illegal-aliens-accessing-taxpayer-funded-programs.html<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.hhs.gov_press-2Droom_prwora-2Dhhs-2Dbans-2Dillegal-2Daliens-2Daccessing-2Dtaxpayer-2Dfunded-2Dprograms.html&d=DwMFAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=jblVzryv37xz6dGHTIBd0omyr7IZ_ghleJygNWPo2JE&m=PrXmUuIdGwUVd6_tVd9i8EVboD-gh_R2gqrk1EKYHj2ankjBINzyODp_cbzcWP0r&s=-kRuGOwAi9QXcV9hE14PXN0-IRMnqL5USPLquYp-FDc&e=>. 1. Here is a copy of the class action lawsuit I mentioned filed by immigration groups seeking to stop ICE arrests at immigration courthouses. The case is Immigration Advocates Response v. U.S. Dept. of Justice: https://immigrantjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/IARCvDOJ-Complaint_07-16-2025_filestamped.pdf 1. Here is a copy of the Ninth Circuit opinion denying the defendant / appellant's motion for a stay except as to one limited part in Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem. https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/08/01/25-4312.pdf The TRO at issue here provides: a. As required by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, Defendants shall be enjoined from conducting detentive stops in this District unless the agent or officer has reasonable suspicion that the person to be stopped is within the United States in violation of U.S. immigration law. b. In connection with paragraph [a], Defendants may not rely solely on the factors below, alone or in combination, to form reasonable suspicion for a detentive stop, except as permitted by law: i. Apparent race or ethnicity; ii. Speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent; iii. Presence at a particular location (e.g., bus stop, car wash, tow yard, day laborer pick up site, agricultural site, etc.); or iv. The type of work one does. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the defendants that "except as permitted by law" clause renders paragraph b. impermissibly vague. The court therefore granted the motion for a stay as to the "except as permitted by law" but denied it for the rest of the TRO. In terms of the scope of the injunction, the Ninth Circuit discusses the Trump v. Casa case and concludes that "a district-wide injunction is necessary 'to provide complete relief' to each of the Stop/Arrest Plaintiffs." The court rejected the argument that the TRO within the entire central district was an impermissible universal injunction. Thanks, Amanda [logo]<https://imla.org/> [facebook icon]<https://www.facebook.com/InternationalMunicipalLawyersAssociation/>[twitter icon]<https://twitter.com/imlalegal>[linkedin icon]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/international-municipal-lawyers-association-inc./> Amanda Karras (she/her) Executive Director / General Counsel International Municipal Lawyers Association P: (202) 466-5424 x7116 D: (202) 742-1018 51 Monroe St. Suite 404 Rockville, MD, 20850 Plan Ahead! See IMLA's upcoming events<https://imla.org/events/>, calls and programming.