The U.S. Supreme Court Monday handed the Trump administration a win and lifted restrictions barring federal agents from making immigration arrests resulting from “roving patrols” that a Los Angeles federal judge determined targeted people for deportation based on their race or language.
The court ruled by a 6-3 margin, granting the federal government’s emergency appeal of the judge’s temporary restraining order freezing the raids as they had been carried out.
U.S. District Judge Maame E. Frimpong issued the temporary restraining order July 11 barring immigration stops based solely on race or ethnicity, language, location or employment. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals later agreed.
In his majority opinion, conservative Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, who was nominated to the high court by President Donald Trump in 2018, wrote that “apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion” but it can be relevant when considered along with other factors.
The court’s three liberal justices disagreed with the decision.
In the dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the Trump administration “has all but declared that all Latinos, U.S. citizens or not, who work low-wage jobs are fair game to be seized at any time, taken away from work, and held until they provide proof of their legal status to the agents’ satisfaction.”
In its appeal, the Justice Department argued that the injunction “threatens to upend immigration officials’ ability to enforce the immigration laws in the Central District of California by hanging the prospect of contempt over every investigative stop of suspected illegal aliens.”
Six of the nine justices on the Supreme Court were appointed by Republican presidents.
“This decision is a devastating setback for our plaintiffs and communities who, for months, have been subjected to immigration stops because of the color of their skin, occupation, or the language they speak,” Mohammad Tajsar, senior staff attorney at the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, said in a statement.
“In running to the Supreme Court to request this stay, the government made clear that its enforcement operation in Southern California is driven by race. We will continue fighting the administration’s racist deportation scheme to ensure every person living in Southern California — regardless of race or status — is safe.”
The roving raids targeting car washes, parking lots where day laborers gather and garment factories disrupted immigrant communities throughout the region for weeks in June and July.
Mark Rosenbaum, senior special counsel at Los Angeles civil rights firm Public Counsel, said the ruling “allows the Trump administration to resume racially discriminatory raids across Los Angeles, giving federal agents license to detain people without evidence or due process simply because of the color of their skin, the language they speak, or the work they do.”
He said the raids “were never about public safety but about targeting immigrants and sowing fear. This fight is not over. We will continue pressing our case in court until every person in our communities can live free from fear, with their rights and dignity fully protected.”
The high court’s order does not halt further proceedings in the case. On Sept. 24, Frimpong will hear arguments on whether to issue a preliminary injunction based on what is expected to be additional evidence presented by plaintiffs.
Assemblyman Mark González, D-Los Angeles, of Los Angeles said the Supreme Court decision “unleashes” what he called “government-sanctioned oppression.”
“This wannabe king and his allies didn’t just overturn a judge’s common-sense order — they shredded the constitutional protections that are supposed to shield us from government overreach and racism,” he said in a statement. “This ruling gives ICE a green light to hunt people down based on the color of their skin, the language they speak, or where they work.”
According to González, the ruling “puts millions of citizens and immigrants under suspicion simply for existing. That’s not law and order — that’s discrimination wearing the mask of justice. This ruling denies our communities the equal dignity and protection they deserve.”
The decision Monday stems from a lawsuit filed in early July in which Southern California residents, workers and advocacy groups accused the U.S. Department of Homeland Security of “abducting and disappearing” community members using unlawful stop and warrantless arrest tactics and confining individuals at a federal building in illegal conditions while denying them access to attorneys.
Lead plaintiff Pedro Vasquez Perdomo, 54, a day laborer of Pasadena, says he was waiting to be picked up for a construction job at a Metro bus stop in front of a Winchell’s Donuts in Pasadena on the morning of June 18 when he and two others were surrounded by masked men with guns, arrested and taken to a detention center in Los Angeles, where he remained for three weeks. He has since been granted bond and released.
The men who took Vasquez Perdomo never identified themselves to the plaintiffs, never stated they were immigration officers authorized to make arrests, never stated that they had arrest warrants and never informed the plaintiffs of the basis for their arrests, the lawsuit alleges.
“When ICE grabbed me, they never showed a warrant or explained why,” he said Monday in response to the ruling. “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. I joined this case because what happened to me is happening to others everyday just for being brown, speaking Spanish, or standing on a corner looking for work. The system failed us today, but I’m not staying silent. We’ll keep fighting because our lives are important.”
Armando Gudino, executive director of the Los Angeles Worker Center Network, also blasted the ruling.
“The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of racial profiling,” he said. “A dark shadow has been cast over this country’s Constitution and its future. This is a dangerous precedent for immigrant rights and civil liberties. The decision legitimizes the unconstitutional practice of targeting individuals based on their race, language, or neighborhood. It turns back the clock on decades of legal progress and reinforces a system where some communities are seen as suspect by default.”
Frimpong’s order had applied in the seven-county Central District, including Los Angeles and Orange counties as well as Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo.
Acting U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli of the Central District of California applauded the Supreme Court decision.
“We argued the order was overly broad, aiming to hinder our ability to apprehend and remove illegal immigrants in Los Angeles,” he posted on X. “We are a nation of laws.”