Poli Alert Politics & Civics
Related Articles
The Supreme Court on Monday sided with the Trump administration, temporarily allowing federal immigration agents to resume roving patrols and stops in the Los Angeles region despite a lower-court ruling that restricted the practice.
The unsigned order put on hold a July 11 decision by U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, who found that agents could not stop people solely because of race, ethnicity, language or low-wage employment.
The court’s conservative majority did not explain its reasoning, but Justice Brett Kavanaugh issued a concurring opinion suggesting that agents may have “reasonable suspicion” in many circumstances, given the large population of undocumented immigrants in Southern California.
“The Judiciary does not set immigration policy or decide enforcement priorities,” Kavanaugh wrote.
Sotomayor blasts ruling
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, delivered a scathing 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,” Sotomayor wrote. “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.”
She warned the ruling risked eroding Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful searches and seizures for immigrant communities and Latino residents.
Case background
The lawsuit was brought by groups including the United Farm Workers and the Los Angeles Worker Center Network, along with individual plaintiffs who alleged they were stopped or detained without cause. Some were U.S. citizens.
One plaintiff, Jorge Hernandez Viramontes, said his Orange County car wash was visited by immigration agents three times in June, and he was detained despite being a legal resident. Another, Jason Brian Gavidia, said he was stopped and questioned in Los Angeles County.
Frimpong had ruled that the practice likely violated both the Fourth Amendment and, in some cases, the Fifth Amendment by denying detainees access to lawyers. She concluded the government used “roving patrols that pick up people without reasonable suspicion” despite acknowledging such actions would be unconstitutional.
Trump administration’s position
Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued the district court ruling was overly broad, misapplied the Fourth Amendment, and jeopardized immigration enforcement. He said that while speaking Spanish or working in construction “alone does not automatically create reasonable suspicion,” those factors “can heighten the likelihood” that someone is unlawfully present.
Attorney General Pam Bondi praised the Supreme Court order, writing on X that agents could now enforce the law “without judicial micromanagement.”
What comes next
The case will continue in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but the Supreme Court’s emergency ruling means immigration patrols may resume in the meantime.
Mohammad Tajsar, an ACLU attorney representing plaintiffs, called the decision “a devastating setback” for immigrant and Latino communities in Los Angeles.
“U.S. citizens and others who are lawfully present have been subjected to significant intrusions on their liberty,” plaintiffs’ lawyers wrote in court filings.
The Trump administration has frequently asked the high court to block lower-court rulings on immigration and has prevailed in most cases.
