- “This Administration rounded up and arrested California residents, including U.S. citizens and legal residents, based on the color of their skin or the language they speak. This is blatantly illegal, yet the Supreme Court is allowing it to happen while the case proceeds.” – Senator Adam Schiff
WASHINGTON, D.C. – In a 6–3 decision issued Sept. 8, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the Trump administration’s request to stay a lower court order that had blocked federal immigration raids in Los Angeles, effectively allowing immigration agents to resume stopping and detaining people based on their race, language, job, or location.
The unsigned order in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo reversed rulings by both the district court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which had temporarily barred Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Department of Homeland Security from relying solely on four factors to stop individuals: apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at locations such as car washes or bus stops, and working in low-wage jobs.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, concurring, wrote that those factors, considered together, could contribute to “reasonable suspicion” under longstanding precedent.
“Apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion,” he wrote, “but it can be a relevant factor when considered along with other salient factors.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, issued a sharp dissent.
“We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job,” she wrote. She called the majority’s decision “another grave misuse of our emergency docket” and said it effectively blesses “unlawful mass arrests” in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Sotomayor’s dissent described “Operation At Large,” a series of raids launched in Los Angeles in June, in which teams of armed and masked immigration agents stormed car washes, Home Depots, tow yards, farms, recycling centers, churches, and parks. Over the course of a month, nearly 2,800 arrests were made.
In one case, Jason Gavidia, a Latino U.S. citizen, was working on his car at a tow yard in Montebello when agents ordered him to stop, questioned him repeatedly about whether he was “American,” racked a rifle when he struggled to recall his birth hospital, and pushed him against a fence before twisting his arm behind his back. He was released only after producing his REAL ID, which agents never returned.
In another case, U.S. citizen Jorge Viramontes, a car wash manager, was detained, taken to a warehouse, and questioned about his citizenship before being driven back to work.
Other encounters were even more violent.
In Pasadena, agents in unmarked cars rushed three Latino men waiting for work at a bus stop.
In Glendale, masked agents with rifles jumped out of vehicles at a Home Depot and tear-gassed Latino day laborers without identifying themselves.
In downtown Los Angeles, a tamale vendor was surrounded and violently handled without a single question asked. Sotomayor noted that many Angelenos compared the detentions to kidnappings. U.S. citizens said they now feel compelled to carry passports at all times, fearing they could otherwise be detained for looking Latino.
The dissent highlighted the impact on families and communities. Parents expressed fear of picking their children up from school, while workers said they were unable to make ends meet because they were too afraid to go to their jobs.
“The Constitution does not permit the creation of such a second-class citizenship status,” Sotomayor wrote, criticizing the majority for shifting the burden onto citizens to prove their right to walk freely.
The decision triggered immediate outcry. Governor Gavin Newsom said on X, “@realDonaldTrump’s hand-picked SCOTUS majority just became the Grand Marshal for a parade of racial terror in LA. His administration is targeting Latinos — and anyone who doesn’t look or sound like @StephenM’s idea of an American — to deliberately harm our families and economy.”
Senator Ed Markey said, “According to SCOTUS, this Administration can racially profile and violate civil rights without consequence. The Constitution is not a suggestion. People deserve to live without fear they will be seized by the government, solely based on their skin color or the language they speak.”
Senator Alex Padilla, chair of the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee, issued a blistering statement. “The Administration has said it themselves: they are detaining people simply based on whether they ‘look’ like an immigrant, on the language they speak, or where they work.
“Today’s radical Supreme Court decision tramples on our Constitution and enables racial profiling to continue without explanation. Trump isn’t just targeting violent criminals; he’s sweeping up hardworking people — including U.S. citizens — indiscriminately. And he’s sowing fear and damaging our economy in the process. This is not the final say. There is still time for the Courts to stop this blatantly racist policy from threatening the basic freedoms of Americans and immigrants alike.”
Senator Adam Schiff said, “This Administration rounded up and arrested California residents, including U.S. citizens and legal residents, based on the color of their skin or the language they speak. This is blatantly illegal, yet the Supreme Court is allowing it to happen while the case proceeds. When the history of this country’s rapid descent into dictatorship is written, Republicans in Congress and the Roberts Court will have been its primary enabler.”
Representative Pramila Jayapal called the decision “a violation of our freedoms and a repeat performance of a Supreme Court that is continuing to consolidate power in itself and undermine lower court rulings made by judges appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents.”
Senator María Elena Durazo said, “Six justices just gave ICE agents permission to grab anyone who appears foreign-born, speaks with an accent, or works with their hands. This isn’t law enforcement. It’s state-sanctioned racial profiling.” She pointed to cases where American citizens were detained, warning that almost five million people in Los Angeles County are of Latino descent and all of them are now at risk of detention.
Senator Mazie Hirono added, “SCOTUS just lifted restrictions on race-based LA immigration stops. Now, Trump is asking the Court to freeze billions in Congressionally approved foreign aid. Doesn’t take a genius to predict how SCOTUS will rule. An out-of-control regime, enabled by an out-of-control Court.”
Advocates and plaintiffs echoed those concerns.
Pedro Vasquez Perdomo, the named plaintiff, said, “When ICE grabbed me, they never showed a warrant or explained why. I was treated like I didn’t matter — locked up, cold, hungry, and without a lawyer. Now, the Supreme Court says that’s okay? That’s not justice. That’s racism with a badge.”
Mohammad Tajsar of the ACLU of Southern California called the ruling “a devastating setback” and said the government’s enforcement operation in Southern California is “driven by race.” Mark Rosenbaum of Public Counsel said the ruling “gives license to the Trump administration to resume racially discriminatory raids across Los Angeles, detaining people without evidence or due process simply because of the color of their skin, the language they speak, or the work they do.”
Teresa Romero of the United Farm Workers said, “This does not impact immigrants in a vacuum, it will affect all of us.” Armando Gudino of the Los Angeles Worker Center Network warned the decision “turns back the clock on decades of legal progress.”
Angelica Salas of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights vowed, “Very soon, we’ll be back in court continuing the fight against these obviously illegal policies.”
In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor said the Court’s ruling forces countless Angelenos “to carry enough documentation to prove that they deserve to walk freely.”
She concluded, “The Fourth Amendment protects every individual’s constitutional right to be free from arbitrary interference by law officers. After today, that may no longer be true for those who happen to look a certain way, speak a certain way, and appear to work a certain type of legitimate job that pays very little. Because this is unconscionably irreconcilable with our Nation’s constitutional guarantees, I dissent.”
The case returns to district court on Sept. 24 for arguments on whether to issue a preliminary injunction. Until then, immigration raids across Los Angeles County are expected to continue under the Supreme Court’s order.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
From article: ” . . . relying solely on four factors to stop individuals: apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at locations such as car washes or bus stops, and working in low-wage jobs.”
Honestly – taken together, those factors sound like a high chance of netting illegal immigrants to just about anyone – whether or not they’re officially “approved” by a court.
Much like being approached by a group of young black males in a bad neighborhood is likely to generate a more “cautious” (or downright frightened) reaction from anyone who has any inherent survival instinct – especially if you’re not black. Which is also the reason you don’t find a lot of non-blacks wandering around in those neighborhoods (despite the fact that it’s not politically-correct to even acknowledge that).
But based on how people actually act (and the laws of nature uncovered by Darwin), people do, in fact, take steps to avoid such dangers. And yes, that means that people do discriminate and have biases for those very reasons (survival, avoidance of harm).
Now, you can certainly “blame” people all you want in regard to biases, try to outlaw it, or whatever else – but it’s not going to stop that.
Now, if the majority of them were coming from countries that Trump doesn’t label as “sh*thole countries”, then some of those criteria would change. (But the fact that no one illegally crosses the border from countries that aren’t “sh*tholes” is the reason for the factors above.)