A federal judge’s ruling on Friday raised the hopes of immigrants and advocates of a pause on immigration arrests in Southern California, which has been jolted by a massive immigration crackdown.

The ruling halts indiscriminate stops and arrests in seven California counties, including Los Angeles County, and requires the government provide due process for those detained.

But, amid the massive federal immigration crackdown, which has now pushed to more than a month, Monday was a day for watching for whether the federal government would appeal the ruling, and for seeing how it was playing out in a region where many immigrant-rich communities have been driven into the shadows for fear of arrest.

On both fronts, the ruling appeared to be taking effect. The federal government appealed, asking for an immediate stay on the order.

As of last week, lose to 3,000 people had been detained in the local immigration crackdown, according to reports, being arrested in Home Depot parking lots, car washes, farms and neighborhood streets.

Ultimately, as blistering as U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong’s ruling is, it still depends on federal authorities’ adherence to a court order. And it still prompts questions: Will immigration raids come to an end, for now? And if so, where? Will the government appeal? Are all immigration sweeps unconstitutional?

Here are some things to know about what some advocates said was a historic ruling.

Q: What was the ruling, and why does it matter?

A: Frimpong’s ruling was large in scope but focused on two questions:

Is it illegal for immigration officers to conduct “roving patrols,” targeting people based only on their race, and then question them and arrest them without a warrant or reasonable suspicion?

Can authorities cut off detainees’ access to lawyers who can help them in immigration court?

Friday’s 52-page ruling by Frimpong bars immigration agencies “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.”

The order also bars officers from relying solely on factors such as race or ethnicity, speaking with an accent or being at locations such as bus stops, day laborer sites, car washes or agricultural sites as a basis for detaining people.

In a separate ruling, Frimpong ordered immigration agencies to ensure detainees are provided with access to attorneys or legal representatives seven days a week, access to confidential telephone calls with attorneys at no charge to the detainees, and that those calls “shall not be screened, recorded or otherwise monitored.”

Frimpong wrote in her decision that federal authorities have been “conducting roving patrols without reasonable suspicion” during their immigration crackdown in the Los Angeles area.

She also suggested in her ruling that the two restraining orders she issued should not pose any imposition on immigration authorities from doing their jobs, writing that “requiring law enforcement to comply with the Constitution does not prevent law enforcement from enforcing the law.”

She cited case law showing that “the Fifth Amendment guarantees due process in deportation proceedings.”

“As a result, an alien who faces deportation is entitled to a full and fair hearing of his claims and reasonable opportunity to present evidence on his behalf,” she said, quoting 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals cases.

Q: Is this just for L.A., or does it include other areas?

A: The ruling applies to several Southern California counties in the U.S. District Court’s Central District of California jurisdiction: Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties.

Q: Will the government appeal?

A: Yes. The government filed an emergency motion on Monday to stay the order, pending its appeal.

“The district court has entered a sweeping, district-wide injunction placing coercive restraints on lawful immigration enforcement affecting every immigration stop and detention,” the motion states, adding that the injunction on stops “is inflicting irreparable harm by preventing the Executive from ensuring that immigration laws are enforced.”

Over the weekend, border czar Tom Homan, on CNN’s “State of the Union” program, was already hinting at the gist of the pushback to the ruling.

He seemed to agree that physical description can’t be the sole factor for reasonable suspicion. But it can be one factor, he said, among others, that could raise reasonable suspicion.

“I can tell you this, that every ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) officer goes through Fourth Amendment training every six months, and is reminded what their authorities are for arrest, detention, and questioning. So, the officers are very well-trained,” he said.

Consider, too, official statements out over the weekend that pushed back more on the judge’s ruling on probable cause.

“Look, we’re going to litigate that order, because I think the order’s wrong. I mean, she’s (Frimpong’s) assuming that the officers don’t have reasonable suspicion. They don’t need probable cause to briefly detain and question somebody. They just need reasonable suspicion. And that’s based on many articulable facts,” Homan said. “So, unless she’s in the officer’s mind, I don’t know if she would make that decision that, well, they’re not using reasonable suspicion. How does she know that? I mean, every officer has to bring articulable facts to raise reasonable suspicion, and then they can briefly detain.”

Q: Does this put an end to all ICE arrests?

A: No. In her ruling, Frimpong noted that the federal government can “conduct immigration enforcement — even large-scale immigration enforcement.”

But there was a big caveat.

She couched her ruling in terms of civil liberties; that all people, regardless of immigration status, are guaranteed protections under the Constitution, namely against illegal search and seizure and the requirement of probable cause before an arrest.

She also stressed that people are protected from such arrests under the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause.

Q: Will local Home Depots and car washes remain hot spots for ICE sweeps?

A: In theory, no. But that also depends on if the government adheres to the ruling.

The federal government’s immediate response suggested that the judge was overstepping her authority.

“No federal judge has the authority to dictate immigration policy — that authority rests with Congress and the President. Enforcement operations require careful planning and execution; skills far beyond the purview or jurisdiction of any judge. We expect this gross overstep of judicial authority to be corrected on appeal,” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement on Monday.

After Friday’s ruling, Bill Essayli, the U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, insisted that enforcement agencies have adhered to the law.

“We strongly disagree with the allegations in the lawsuit and maintain that our agents have never detained individuals without proper legal justification,” Essayli said. “Our federal agents will continue to enforce the law and abide by the U.S. Constitution.”

Q: How did this ruling come about in the first place?

A: Pedro Vasquez Perdomo, Carlos Alexander Osorto and Isaac Villegas Molina are all Pasadena residents who were sitting at a bus stop across from a Winchell’s Donuts on the morning of June 18, waiting to be picked up to go to a job.

That’s when four cars suddenly descended on the spot and about six armed federal agents wearing masks apprehended them without immediately identifying themselves, according to a lawsuit echoed in the Friday ruling.

No warrant was shown, the lawsuit alleges. They were ultimately booked and taken to a detention facility in downtown Los Angeles, where attorneys say they were detained in unsanitary conditions.

The early-morning immigration raid was part of a massive federal operation blanketing Southern California and the nation, instilling fear across an array of neighborhoods. It prompted Rep. Judy Chu, D-Pasadena, and Pasadena Mayor Victor Gordo to travel to a detention area that day in the basement of the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building in downtown L.A.

They demanded to see six people who they said were detained in the city and to make sure their due process rights were ensured. After repeated attempts, the officials were turned away without connecting with those detained.

Video taken from inside the Winchell’s Donuts near Orange Grove Boulevard and Los Robles Avenue showed ICE officers detaining at least two men sitting at the bus stop outside. The men appeared to be handcuffed and surrounded by armed officers wearing face coverings. The incident occurred about 6 a.m., according to witnesses.

The lawsuit was filed July 2 in Los Angeles federal court by Public Counsel, the American Civil Liberties Union and attorneys representing Southern California residents, workers and advocacy groups on behalf of people who allege they were unlawfully stopped or detained by federal officers targeting locations where immigrant workers are traditionally hired. It accused immigration officials of carrying out roving patrols and detaining people without warrants and regardless of whether they have actual proof they are in the country legally.

It further alleged that federal agencies, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, engaged in unconstitutional and unlawful immigration enforcement raids by targeting Angelenos based on their perceived race and ethnicity and denying detainees constitutionally mandated due process.

The lawsuit accused the Department of Homeland Security of operating a program of “abducting and disappearing” community members using unlawful arrest tactics, then confining detainees in illegal conditions while denying access to attorneys.

Q: How are other cities involved?

A: It’s not new news that the immigration raids are happening throughout Southern California.

But what may be lesser known are those watching this case.

Attorneys for Los Angeles County and the cities of Los Angeles, Montebello, Monterey Park, Pasadena, Pico Rivera, Santa Monica, West Hollywood and Culver City filed a motion with Frimpong on Monday formally asking to join the case as intervenors in support of the plaintiffs.

They asked that a hearing on their motion be held Friday.

City News Service contributed to this report.