CHICAGO — An opinion piece published on SCOTUSblog on Dec. 23, 2025, sheds light on the constitutional and human consequences of contemporary immigration enforcement operating under the Trump administration, drawing connections to historical cases such as the Supreme Court’s 1842 decision in Prigg v. Pennsylvania.
The article, “The worst Supreme Court case you’ve never heard of, and what it tells us about Trump’s immigration enforcement,” recounts the 1837 case of Edward Prigg and other slave catchers who, under the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, kidnapped Margaret Morgan, a free Black woman, and her children from Pennsylvania and took them to Maryland.
In the years that followed, Pennsylvania enacted a “personal liberty law” requiring slave catchers to appear before a state magistrate before removing alleged fugitives from the state. Under this law, Prigg initially brought the Morgan family before a magistrate but was denied authorization to remove them because Jerry Morgan was “clearly free,” while Margaret’s legal status was disputed.
Pennsylvania later prosecuted Prigg after he returned while Jerry was away, abducted Margaret and the children, and transported them to Maryland without authorization. Despite the prosecution, the Supreme Court struck down the statute. Justice Joseph Story, writing for the court, ruled that states could not impose restrictions on slaveholders reclaiming enslaved people under the Constitution’s fugitive slave clause, except to prevent a “breach of the peace or any illegal violence.”
The SCOTUSblog article emphasizes how this ruling left Black people in free states unprotected from abduction, violence and other humanitarian harms, including those who were legally free. The author writes, “We don’t know what happened to Margaret and her children,” adding that Jerry Morgan never learned their fate despite desperately trying to find them. This decision, which stripped states of the power to protect their residents, is presented as a parallel to present-day immigration enforcement.
The article cites reports of families separated during immigration actions, noting that the author “cannot look at that picture without thinking of Jerry Morgan,” referring to an image of a man crying outside a Chicago-area ICE facility after his wife was taken. One need not equate immigration enforcement with slavery, she writes, “to recognize the inhumanity of what is occurring.”
Approximately 6 million children — about 82% of whom are U.S. citizens — have at least one parent who is undocumented, with more than 14 million U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents also living with an undocumented immigrant. These figures support the article’s reference to reports that the Trump administration set a quota of 3,000 detentions per day.
With people being “seized by armed and masked men” and denied the chance to establish their legal status, contact loved ones or say goodbye, the article critiques the reasoning and implementation of the civil laws the administration uses as a framework. The author argues this approach “devastates families, communities, and businesses, and spreads massive fear.”
The piece also notes that President Donald Trump ordered agents to focus on Somali communities in the Minneapolis–St. Paul area and describes Somali immigrants as “garbage.” This language raises concerns about racial profiling in immigration enforcement, with the article pointing out that federal agents have relied on factors such as apparent Hispanic ethnicity, speaking Spanish, location and type of work to establish “reasonable suspicion” of unlawful presence.
According to the article, Justice Brett Kavanaugh has endorsed this reasoning by writing that U.S. citizens and lawfully present noncitizens would be only “briefly detained” long enough to establish their status, citing Noem v. Perdomo Vasquez. In contrast, the article notes that U.S. citizens in ICE custody have been held “sometimes for extended periods and sometimes repeatedly,” with agents refusing to accept proof of citizenship or lawful status.
The article also cites findings by U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis in her examination of “Operation Midway Blitz” in Chicago, which documented immigration agents firing pepper balls at unarmed protesters and journalists, deploying tear gas into crowds and vehicles without warning, and physically assaulting observers and demonstrators. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit later stayed Ellis’ injunction, the author notes, though “not because they doubted her factfinding.”
These incidents, along with the shooting of two individuals in Chicago, one of whom died, underscore the extent to which the author argues federal agents are exercising power beyond their roles. The article further cites an instance of law enforcement rappelling into an apartment building at night and removing residents without warrants.
Detainees have reported being held in “filthy and overcrowded spaces” without adequate medical care, bedding, food or access to lavatories. The article states that detainees are sometimes pressured, under threat or physical force, to sign “voluntary” deportation papers without lawyers and that many are unable to read the documents, which are often only in English.
Critiquing the immigration court system and its placement within the Department of Justice, the opinion piece describes the situation as one where “the boss of the prosecutor” is also “the boss of the judge.” Several immigration judges have been fired under the administration, the author writes, despite a backlog of roughly 3.8 million cases.
Those judges include individuals who grant asylum at higher-than-average rates, a context the article says makes Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s posting for a “Deportation Judge” particularly troubling. The SCOTUSblog piece emphasizes that “there is in fact no such job” in federal law.
In concluding, the author reflects on historical and contemporary forms of resistance. In the 19th century, slave-catcher watches and community rescues helped advance protective efforts even when courts struck down laws. Such actions, described as “acts not only of protest and solidarity, but also of constitutional vision and commitment,” are framed as part of a tradition that eventually led to the Reconstruction Amendments.
Similarly, the author writes, today has seen the rise of mutual aid and activism, including whistleblowing, filming enforcement actions and sustained support for families affected by immigration enforcement, offering a counterweight amid ongoing humanitarian concerns.
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.
