By a 6-3 vote, the justices set aside a Los Angeles judge’s temporary restraining order that barred agents from stopping people based in part on their race or apparent ethnicity.
“Apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion,” said Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.
“Today, the Supreme Court took a step in a badly wrong direction,” Ilya Somin, a George Mason University law professor, wrote on the Volokh Conspiracy blog.
They also pointed to the data that suggests about 10% of the people in the Los Angeles area are illegally in the United States.
“We don’t arrest somebody or detain somebody without reasonable suspicion.”
The Supreme Court unanimously decided fifty years ago that U.S. S. Because the occupants of a car on a freeway near San Clemente seemed to be “of Mexican ancestry,” Border Patrol agents stopped the vehicle, in violation of the Constitution. “”.
According to the justices, a driver’s “Mexican appearance” does not warrant stopping them to inquire about their immigration status because the 4th Amendment protects Americans from arbitrary searches.
On Monday, however, the court struck a very different note by siding with the Trump administration and paving the way for the detention and interrogation of Latinos who might be in the country illegally. A temporary restraining order issued by a judge in Los Angeles that prohibited agents from stopping individuals based in part on their race or apparent ethnicity was overturned by the justices by a vote of 6-3.
The statement made by Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh was that “apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion.”. However, when taken into account in conjunction with other noteworthy factors, it may be a relevant factor. “.”.
Critics claimed that the decision had made it possible to tolerate discrimination based on race and ethnicity.
Ahilan Arulanantham, a law professor at UCLA, described it as “shocking and appalling.”. I am not aware of any recent ruling that permits discrimination based on race. “.”.
Kavanaugh’s writings, Arulanantham pointed out, speak for the justice alone, and the full court did not provide an explanation for its decision in a case that was brought before it on its emergency docket.
However, as he and others noted, the court presided over by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. banned using race or ethnicity as a criterion for admission to universities.
“It is necessary to eradicate all forms of racial discrimination,” Roberts wrote in 2023 for a 6-3 majority. The affirmative action practices of the University of North Carolina and Harvard were overturned in that ruling.
On the Volokh Conspiracy blog, law professor Ilya Somin of George Mason University wrote, “Today, the Supreme Court took a step in a badly wrong direction.”. Conclusions that racial and ethnic discrimination is generally unconstitutional but that its use is “reasonable” under the 4th Amendment are illogical. “.”.
Before ICE agents decided to confront U, reports had already surfaced. A. citizens and legal permanent residents before they can demonstrate their status, forcing many to start carrying their documents with them at all times.
On Monday, ICE officers pushed a man outside a federal court in New York before he could present his identification. They fired him.
requested to address growing apprehension among U.S. S. . People shouldn’t be concerned, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Tuesday, despite the possibility that the ruling would lead to an increase in ICE raids.
She went on to say that immigration officers use law enforcement intelligence to carry out targeted operations.
Because the law permits it and because the federal government has been doing this for decades, the Supreme Court upheld the Trump administration’s right to stop people in Los Angeles and ask them a few quick questions about their legal status, Leavitt stated. According to the Immigration and Nationality Act, if an immigration officer has a good faith belief that a person is not authorized to be in the country, they may stop them for a brief period of time and ask them about their immigration status. Furthermore, reasonable suspicion is predicated on the entirety of the circumstances rather than just race. “”.
Leavitt’s remarks were addressed by the Democrats on the House Homeland Security Committee on X, who wrote: “ICE has jailed U. S. . people. The Trump administration is defending the practice of racial profiling. When “looking Hispanic” is considered probable cause, nobody is safe. “.”.
In her dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that over half of the people living in Greater Los Angeles are Latino and speak Spanish.
She wrote, “Many people in the Los Angeles area have been handcuffed, thrown to the ground, and grabbed because of their appearance, their accents, and the fact that they work by hand.”. The Court unnecessarily exposes countless more people to these same humiliations today. “.”.
The definition of “reasonable suspicion” was at issue in this case. “.”.
Police and federal agents have been allowed to stop and question someone if they see something specific that indicates they might be breaking the law for decades, according to the court.
The question of whether agents could stop people who look Latino and work as day laborers at low-paying jobs like car washes was disputed by the two sides.
Both Kavanaugh and the attorneys for President Trump stated that agents may stop people based on the “totality of the circumstances,” which may include their ethnicity and place of employment. Additionally, they cited data indicating that approximately 10% of the population in the Los Angeles area is in the country illegally.
The White House border advisor, Tom Homan, stated that racial profiling is not occurring at all and that the legal standard of reasonable suspicion “has a group of factors you must take into consideration.”. “.”.
In an interview with MSNBC, Homan praised the Supreme Court’s ruling and said it was a “false narrative being pushed.”. “We never make an arrest or hold someone without a good reason. “.”.
