The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday sided with President Donald Trump, allowing federal immigration officials to continue controversial “roving patrols” in Southern California.
The decision gives Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents the authority to stop and question people about their immigration status under circumstances that lower courts had ruled likely violated the Fourth Amendment.
The court issued no explanation for its decision, but Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion defending the practice, while the three liberal justices – Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson – issued a sharp dissent.
At the center of the case were incidents where heavily armed and masked ICE agents pulled aside individuals who identified as Latino, including U.S. citizens, around Los Angeles. Agents questioned them about immigration status, often based on appearance, language, or presence in locations like farms and bus stops. Lower courts had ruled that such stops lacked the “reasonable suspicion” required under the Constitution.
A U.S. District Court ruling earlier this year temporarily blocked the practice, and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals largely upheld the order. But the Supreme Court reversed course, effectively reviving the patrols across seven counties in Southern California.
DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin welcomed the ruling, calling it “a win for the safety of Californians and the rule of law.” She said ICE would continue to arrest and remove “murderers, rapists, gang members, and other criminal illegal aliens.”
In his concurrence, Kavanaugh argued that while ethnicity alone cannot justify a stop, it can be considered along with other factors. “Taken together,” he wrote, “these factors can constitute at least reasonable suspicion of illegal presence in the United States.” He emphasized that such suspicion only authorizes officers to briefly stop and ask about immigration status.
Justice Sotomayor delivered a blistering dissent, warning the ruling endangers basic freedoms. “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 noted that ICE agents in practice often go beyond brief inquiries, using firearms, physical force, and detentions in warehouses.
Sotomayor also criticized the lack of explanation from the majority, saying the court’s growing reliance on terse emergency rulings was undermining public confidence. “The court’s order is troubling for another reason: It is entirely unexplained,” she said.
Civil rights groups also condemned the decision. Cecillia Wang, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, warned it would “put people at grave risk” and create a “papers please” climate for anyone perceived as Latino.
District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, who had initially ruled against the government, found that the Trump administration was operating “roving patrols without reasonable suspicion and denying access to lawyers.” She cited “a mountain of evidence” that federal agents were targeting individuals based primarily on ethnicity and language.
Trump officials have openly signaled they intend to continue aggressive enforcement. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem has called the lower court judge an “idiot,” while a top Border Patrol official bragged that agents would “go even harder now” despite the court challenges.
The case is one of nearly two dozen emergency appeals the Trump administration has taken to the Supreme Court since the start of his second term in January. Many have focused on immigration policies, reflecting Trump’s renewed crackdown on undocumented migrants.
For critics like Sotomayor, the decision represents not just a legal setback but a broader erosion of constitutional rights. “Rather than stand idly by while our freedoms are lost, I dissent,” she wrote.
The ruling leaves ICE agents free to resume patrols across Southern California and may embolden similar practices in other parts of the country – setting up future legal and political battles over immigration enforcement and civil liberties.
Leo Cruz brings sharp insights into the world of politics, offering balanced reporting and analysis on the latest policies, elections, and global political events. With years of experience covering campaigns and interviewing world leaders, Leo ensures readers are always informed and engaged.
