Supreme Court Decision on Immigration Enforcement
Washington – On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration could proceed with halting immigration agents from detaining individuals suspected of being in the U.S. illegally based on criteria such as visiting car washes, speaking Spanish, or having brown skin.
In a 6-3 decision, the Court granted an emergency appeal, overturning a Los Angeles judge’s ruling that had restricted immigration patrols from targeting individuals based solely on their appearance, language, or activities in Southern California.
Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, while concurring, stated that federal law allows for the temporary detention of individuals if immigration officials have reasonable doubts about their legal status based on specific facts. He emphasized that questioning based on such doubts has long been part of U.S. immigration enforcement across different presidential administrations.
The three liberal justices voiced their dissent. Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the ruling, stating that there was no justification for the government to detain individuals based on their ethnicity or socioeconomic status. She argued that it sends a message that anyone who appears Latino, speaks Spanish, or holds low-wage jobs is fair game for detention.
Sotomayor further contended that immigration agents often resort to violence and detention, rather than conducting simple stops for questioning, pointing out that American citizens have also been wrongfully detained.
This ruling is viewed as a significant victory for Trump, paving the way for what he has described as a “large deportation operation” in U.S. history. Since early June, his administration has targeted areas like Los Angeles for aggressive immigration enforcement, affecting long-time residents, legal immigrants, and U.S. citizens alike.
A coalition of civil rights organizations and local lawyers contested the detentions of three immigrants and two citizens, claiming they were apprehended without proper justification. A temporary restraining order was issued on July 11, prohibiting such actions based solely on race, language, or employment status.
On July 28, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld this order. The case, still unfolding, has a preliminary injunction hearing scheduled for later this month. However, the Justice Department argued that even temporary limits on mass arrests would cause “irreparable harm” to the government.
Shortly thereafter, Trump’s legal team appealed to the Supreme Court, asserting that agents should be able to act on common-sense assumptions regarding the legal status of Spanish-speaking individuals engaged in low-wage work. Attorney General D. John Sauer indicated that “reasonable doubt” is a low threshold, suggesting agents should consider the broader context when making stops.
Responses from both sides highlighted the diverse demographics of the region, with local municipalities claiming that a significant portion of the population meets the government’s criteria for reasonable doubt. Approximately 10 million Latinos reside in the counties affected by the orders, with many speaking languages other than English at home.
Sauer also questioned whether the plaintiffs had standing, arguing they were unlikely to face arrest again—an argument that was met with skepticism in the Ninth Circuit. The panel noted that agents had frequently conducted stops in the area, and one plaintiff reported being apprehended twice in just ten days, demonstrating ongoing risk.
After the ruling, heavily armed Border Patrol agents forcibly detained workers from a Home Depot parking lot, seemingly disregarding the court’s decisions. Immigration rights advocates cautioned against intervention, stating that this pattern reflects an unconstitutional enforcement strategy that unreasonably places millions of law-abiding individuals at risk of detention.
The judge’s orders apply to seven counties, including Los Angeles and Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo.
