Conservative majority overturns judge’s order restricting racial profiling in federal enforcement

The Supreme Court just handed President Donald Trump a major victory in his immigration crackdown. In a 6-3 decision Monday, the Court lifted restrictions that had protected Los Angeles residents from being stopped based solely on their race, language, or occupation. This ruling clears the way for federal agents to resume aggressive “roving patrols” across America’s second-largest city, potentially affecting millions of Latino residents and U.S. citizens alike.

The decision overturns a July ruling by U.S. District Judge Maame Frimpong, who found a “mountain of evidence” that federal agents were conducting unconstitutional stops. Now, with the Court’s blessing, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) can return to tactics that civil rights groups call “blatant racial profiling.”

What the Supreme Court Decision Means

The Court’s conservative majority argued that federal immigration officers need broader discretion to carry out enforcement operations. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, acknowledged that “apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion” but claimed it can be a “relevant factor” when combined with other circumstances.

Kavanaugh justified the decision by pointing to Los Angeles’s immigrant population and common employment patterns. His reasoning included factors like people gathering at locations “to seek daily work” and working in jobs “that do not require paperwork and are therefore especially attractive to illegal immigrants.”

The three liberal justices issued a powerful dissent. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that “countless people in the Los Angeles area have been grabbed, thrown to the ground, and handcuffed simply because of their looks, their accents, and the fact they make a living by doing manual labor.”

The LA Immigration Raids That Sparked Legal Action

The legal challenge began after federal agents launched sweeping immigration operations across Los Angeles in June. These raids targeted locations where Latino workers commonly gather, including Home Depot parking lots, car washes, and bus stops.

The tactics were aggressive and theatrical. In one operation dubbed “Trojan Horse,” agents hid in a Penske rental truck before bursting out to detain day laborers, creating a hype video set to rap music. Another recent raid involved 40 agents using tear gas and pepper pellets to disperse crowds at a Westlake Home Depot.

The human impact was immediate and devastating. Brian Gavidia, a U.S. citizen from East LA, was captured on video yelling “I was born here in the States. East LA, bro!” as federal agents seized him. He was released 20 minutes later after proving his citizenship.

Job Garcia, another U.S. citizen, was held for more than 24 hours after agents violently arrested him at a Home Depot where he was making a delivery. These cases of mistaken detention of U.S. citizens became central to the lawsuit challenging the enforcement tactics.

Constitutional Concerns and Civil Rights Implications

Judge Frimpong’s original order addressed core Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The judge found that federal agents were relying on constitutionally prohibited factors to establish “reasonable suspicion” for stops:

• Apparent race or ethnicity
• Speaking Spanish or accented English
• Being present at locations like Home Depot, car washes, or agricultural sites
• Type of occupation, particularly manual labor

The restraining order covered nearly 20 million people in the Los Angeles region, almost half of whom identify as Hispanic or Latino. Civil rights groups argued this demographic reality made the enforcement tactics particularly problematic.

Thomas A. Saenz, President of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), called Kavanaugh’s reasoning “outrageous and unbefitting any jurist committed to the Constitution.” He criticized the justice for making “crude and unsupported assumptions and stereotypes about the undocumented” while ignoring that “millions of citizens and lawful residents of the Los Angeles community are also Latino and also speak Spanish.”

Local Officials Condemn the Decision

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass issued a sharp rebuke of the Court’s decision, calling it “not only dangerous – it’s un-American and threatens the fabric of personal freedom in the United States of America.”

“Today, the highest court in the country ruled that the White House and masked federal agents can racially profile Angelenos with no due process, snatch them off the street with no evidence or warrant, and take them away with no explanation,” Bass said in her statement.

California Governor Gavin Newsom was equally critical, condemning what he called “Trump’s hand-picked Supreme Court majority.” He argued the decision wasn’t about enforcing immigration laws but “targeting Latinos and anyone who doesn’t look or sound like Stephen Miller’s idea of an American, including U.S. citizens and children.”

The Broader Immigration Enforcement Strategy

This Supreme Court decision fits into Trump’s broader immigration enforcement strategy. The administration has made over 5,210 immigration arrests since June 6 in the Los Angeles region alone. Federal agents are now expanding similar operations to other major cities, including Washington D.C. and Chicago.

The administration deployed nearly 2,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to Los Angeles in response to protests against the raids. This military deployment was later ruled illegal by a federal judge, though the White House dismissed the ruling as coming from a “rogue judge.”

Legal Precedent and Future Implications

The Court’s use of its emergency “shadow docket” to handle this case has drawn criticism from legal experts. Justice Sotomayor called it “yet another grave misuse of our emergency docket” and noted that the Court has now sided with Trump in at least 17 cases in a row.

Legal scholars warn this decision could have nationwide implications beyond immigration enforcement. Kevin R. Johnson, director of the Aoki Center on Critical Race and Nation Studies at UC Davis School of Law, argues that “race-based immigration enforcement undermines Latina/o sense of belonging in the national community for generations.”

The decision also conflicts with the Court’s recent ruling against considering race in college admissions. California Attorney General Rob Bonta noted the irony: “They prevent the use of race (in college admissions) to tackle discrimination but allow the use of race to potentially discriminate.”

What This Means for Communities

The immediate impact is already visible in Los Angeles communities. Immigrant advocates report widespread fear as families avoid public spaces and workers stay away from traditional gathering places. The psychological effect extends beyond undocumented immigrants to include legal residents and U.S. citizens who happen to be Latino.

Chris Newman, legal director for the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, warned that the decision “makes clear that average non-white workers are targets” and gives Trump’s administration “stamp of approval to trample their bedrock constitutional rights.”

Pedro Vasquez Perdomo, one of the plaintiffs who was detained, expressed his frustration: “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.”

Moving Forward: Resistance and Protection

Despite the Supreme Court setback, civil rights organizations are not giving up. The underlying lawsuit continues in federal court, and advocacy groups are mobilizing resources to protect vulnerable communities.

Governor Newsom pledged that California would “continue fighting these abhorrent attacks on Californians.” The state has established rapid response hotlines and legal aid resources for those affected by immigration enforcement.

Community organizations across Los Angeles are hosting “Know Your Rights” workshops and providing legal assistance to immigrants and their families. These grassroots efforts represent the front lines of resistance to policies that many see as fundamentally un-American.

The Stakes for American Democracy

This Supreme Court decision represents more than immigration policy—it’s about the kind of country America chooses to be. When federal agents can stop people based on how they look or sound, when U.S. citizens are detained for speaking Spanish, when entire communities live in fear of their government, we face a crisis of constitutional values.

The dissenting justices understood these stakes. As Justice Sotomayor wrote, “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.”

The question now is whether Americans will accept this new normal or demand better from their institutions. The answer will define not just immigration policy, but the future of civil rights and equal protection under law.

Call to Action: The fight for constitutional rights doesn’t end with one Supreme Court decision. Contact your representatives, support civil rights organizations, and stay informed about developments in your community. Democracy requires active participation from all of us.