FOLLOW US

A divided U.S. Supreme Court on Monday lifted a temporary restraining order that had barred immigration agents from conducting indiscriminate stops in Los Angeles, after a lower court determined in July that racial traits such as appearance and accent alone cannot justify questioning individuals.

In a 6-3 decision, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion stating that the federal government had “demonstrated a fair prospect” that the high court would reverse the district court’s order if asked to rule on the merits.

“The Judiciary does not set immigration policy or decide enforcement priorities. It should come as no surprise that some administrations may be more laissez-faire in enforcing immigration law, and other administrations more strict,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote. “Article III judges may have views on which policy approach is better or fairer. But judges are not appointed to make those policy calls.”

Majority’s Reasoning

Justice Kavanaugh said the immigrant rights groups and individuals who brought the lawsuit lacked standing to seek broad, forward-looking relief against immigration raids carried out by agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Department of Homeland Security.

The plaintiffs, who alleged they had been stopped since early June without reasonable suspicion of being unlawfully present in the U.S., improperly obtained an injunction preventing ICE from detaining them again in the future, according to Kavanaugh. He argued that their claimed harm arose in the past and did not support ongoing relief.

Citing the 1983 precedent Los Angeles v. Lyons, Kavanaugh said the Supreme Court has held that individuals seeking to block police misconduct must show that such actions are likely to happen again. He concluded the plaintiffs lacked any strong basis to believe they would imminently face unlawful stops.

“Plaintiffs have no good basis to believe that law enforcement will unlawfully stop them in the future based on the prohibited factors — and certainly no good basis for believing that any stop of the plaintiffs is imminent,” he wrote.

District Court’s Order

The underlying injunction had been issued by U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong on July 11. In her order, she prohibited immigration officers from stopping people without the reasonable suspicion required under constitutional standards.

Judge Frimpong further specified that immigration agents cannot form reasonable suspicion based solely on factors including:

• Visible race or ethnicity

• Speaking English or Spanish with an accent

• Presence at a particular location such as a bus stop, car wash, or agricultural work site

• The type of work a person performs

Her order reflected findings that such characteristics, by themselves, do not provide legal grounds for a stop.

Scope of Reasonable Suspicion

Justice Kavanaugh, however, noted that the court’s precedent recognizes ethnicity as potentially “a relevant factor,” alongside other indicators and “common sense,” in forming reasonable suspicion of unlawful presence.

This acknowledgment marked a key point of disagreement between the district court and the Supreme Court majority, highlighting the ongoing tension over how far immigration agents may rely on appearance and context in carrying out enforcement.

Dissent

Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The three justices criticized the majority’s use of the emergency docket to intervene, calling the decision “a grave misuse” of the court’s authority.

“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.

Their dissent underscored concerns about racial profiling and civil liberties in immigration enforcement practices.

Case and Representation

The federal government is represented by Solicitor General D. John Sauer.

The plaintiffs — a coalition of immigrant rights groups and individuals — are represented by the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, the UC Irvine School of Law Immigrant and Racial Justice Solidarity Clinic, Public Counsel, the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, the ACLU Foundations of Northern California and San Diego & Imperial Counties, as well as private firms and nonprofit legal organizations including Hecker Fink LLP, Martinez Aguilasocho Law Inc., CHIRLA, and the Immigrant Defenders Law Center.

The case is Kristi Noem et al. v. Pedro Vasquez Perdomo et al., case number 25A169, in the U.S. Supreme Court.