Supreme Court lifted lower-court
The U.S. Supreme Court has cleared the way for the Trump administration to resume aggressive immigration enforcement actions in the Los Angeles region by lifting restrictions that had limited when and how federal agents could conduct raids and stops. The decision effectively removes a lower court’s order that barred immigration officers from targeting individuals based on broad and controversial criteria such as speaking Spanish, appearing Latino, working in construction or day labor, or congregating in locations where undocumented workers are commonly believed to gather. The ruling came after the administration filed an emergency request, arguing that the limits imposed by a federal district judge were undermining the president’s immigration agenda. By granting the request and putting the lower court’s decision on hold, the Supreme Court restored wide discretion to Immigration and Customs Enforcement while the case continues through the appeals process, significantly altering the balance between civil liberties and enforcement authority in one of the nation’s largest and most diverse metropolitan areas.
The justices were reportedly divided 6–3 along ideological lines, with the conservative majority siding with the administration. The Court did not issue a full opinion explaining its reasoning, a common practice in emergency orders, leaving critics to speculate about the constitutional rationale behind the move. The ruling paused an injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, who had concluded that ICE agents in Los Angeles were likely violating the Fourth Amendment by conducting what she described as “roving patrols.” According to her findings, agents were stopping and questioning people at car washes, bus stops, and big-box store parking lots without individualized, reasonable suspicion that they were in the country unlawfully. Instead, she found, enforcement actions appeared to rely heavily on race, language, accent, and occupation—factors she said were constitutionally insufficient and no more indicative of unlawful presence than lawful residence or citizenship.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote separately to explain his support for the Court’s decision, offering a window into how the majority viewed the issue. He argued that brief, consensual interviews by immigration officers do not automatically violate constitutional protections and suggested that certain “common sense” indicators could reasonably be considered when determining whether to ask questions. Kavanaugh pointed to factors such as employment in day labor or construction and limited English proficiency as potentially relevant, though he did not say they could be used alone to justify detention or arrest. His concurrence framed the issue as one of practicality, emphasizing the challenges immigration officers face in enforcing federal law. In contrast, the Court’s three liberal justices issued a sharp dissent, warning that the ruling effectively sanctioned racial and ethnic profiling and eroded basic civil liberties for millions of people who live and work in immigrant communities.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote that the decision moved the country closer to a system in which appearance, language, and economic status could expose individuals to government seizure. She argued that no one should have to fear detention simply because they look Latino, speak Spanish, or work a low-wage job, and she accused the Court of failing to protect constitutional freedoms at a critical moment. The dissent emphasized that the Fourth Amendment requires particularized suspicion and does not allow broad, stereotype-driven enforcement tactics. Sotomayor wrote that by intervening to lift the injunction, the Court had chosen not to stand in the way of practices that risk normalizing discrimination under the guise of immigration control, even as serious questions about their legality remain unresolved.
