What the Supreme Court's Latest Ruling Means for Immigration Enforcement

On September 8, 2025, in a distinct 6–3 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court lifted a temporary restraining order that had previously blocked Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") from targeting individuals based on race, language, occupation, or location in Los Angeles. This emergency decision halts a lower court’s injunction—but whether it reflects constitutional fidelity or a troubling overstep on due process remains heavily debated.

The Emergency Docket & the "Stay" Decision

The case, Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, originated after the Government initiated “Operation At Large” in Los Angeles, by deploying roving patrols of armed and masked immigration agents. Those who were detained and questioned during the "patrols" filed a lawsuit against Kristi Noem, Secretary to the Department of Homeland Security. The case began in a Los Angeles district judge where they barred ICE from conducting broad “roving patrol” stops that relied on four factors seen as proxies for ethnicity: apparent race/ethnicity, Spanish-speaking or accented English, presence in known gathering areas (like day-labor sites), and certain job types.

Rather than wait for a full appellate review, the Supreme Court used its emergency docket to issue a stay, effectively allowing enforcement to resume while litigation continues. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in his concurrence, defended the decision by noting that while ethnicity alone cannot justify suspicion, it may be considered under the “totality of the circumstances”—including geographic and employment patterns—to form reasonable suspicion.

Dissent and Civil Liberties Concerns

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, delivered an affecting dissent. She stated that the use of the Court's emergency docket with regard to this particular case is a misuse of judicial power, warning:

“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. Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor

Her dissent underscores constitutional fears—specifically, that such stops are an affront to Fourth Amendment protections and that the order allows for racial profiling, particularly within Latino communities.

The ruling ignited immediate backlash. The American Immigration Council in their post characterized it as giving ICE a "green light" to resume discriminatory raids that often ensnare citizens and lawful residents.

In L.A., public officials responded adamantly. Mayor Karen Bass called the decision "un-American" and promised continued resistance, including city-level protections and training protocols. Meanwhile, civil rights advocates, including the ACLU, NDLON, and others, agreed to pursue the legal fight to uphold immigrant rights.

What Comes Next

Though the stay allows ICE enforcement to resume, the case is far from over. The Ninth Circuit and potentially the Supreme Court still have opportunities to weigh in. A hearing is scheduled for September 24, and the temporary stay could be lifted or extended depending on future rulings.