TRUMP'S RUBBER STAMP
US Supreme Court lifts restrictions on LA immigration raids
The US Supreme Court on Monday allowed government agents to resume roving patrols to detain migrants in California, a practice critics call racial profiling. The ruling bolsters President Donald Trump’s hardline immigration stance amid stepped-up raids in Los Angeles and other parts of the state.
Issued on: 09/09/2025 -
By: FRANCE 24
Demonstrators gather in front of the Federal building guarded by a mix of US marines and National guards, in Los Angeles, California on July 4, 2025. © Etienne Laurent, AFPThe US Supreme Court on Monday lifted an order preventing government agents from carrying out roving patrols to detain migrants in California, upholding at least for now a practice critics say amounts to racial profiling.
The decision is the latest ruling by the country's highest court in favor of President Donald Trump's increasingly hardline stance in the wake of ramped up raids across Los Angeles and other parts of California.
The conservative majority court announced the decision in an unsigned order that gave no reasons. Its three liberal members dissented. The case remains alive, however, in lower courts and could again end up before the highest court.
The ruling came after a lower court said agents must have specific reasons to arrest people, beyond their speaking Spanish or gathering in places popular with those seeking casual work, and issued an order banning the practice.
Opponents immediately slammed Monday's ruling, with California Governor Gavin Newsom saying it was a deliberate attempt to hurt the state and its diverse people.
"Trump's hand-picked Supreme Court majority just became the Grand Marshal for a parade of racial terror in Los Angeles," said Newsom.
"This isn't about enforcing immigration laws - it's about targeting Latinos and anyone who doesn't look or sound like Stephen Miller's idea of an American," he said, referring to the architect of Trump's immigration enforcement policy.
"Trump's private police force now has a green light to come after your family - and every person is now a target."
USA: 'Trump is a wannabe dictator' says Illinois Governor
on National Guard deployments © France 24
01:48
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass described the ruling as an "attack" on civil liberties.
"The rule of law used to mean something not just to us, but to the Supreme Court, but now, with the stroke of a pen, the Supreme Court has undermined the rights of millions," she said.
Earlier this year masked and heavily armed agents began targeting groups of people at home improvement stores, car washes or on farms around Los Angeles, sparking weeks of mostly peaceful protests in the city.
Critics said the raids -- which swept up a number of US citizens, as well as others in the country legally -- were bluntly aimed at anyone who appeared to be Latino or who was speaking Spanish.
Even after the stay order was issued, agents continued to push the boundaries.
In one high-profile case last month ICE agents grabbed more than a dozen people outside a Los Angeles home furnishings store in a "Trojan Horse" raid.
Read moreProtests over Trump's immigration raids spread across the US
Agents sprang from the back of a rented moving truck in an episode filmed by embedded journalists from Fox News.
Last month a three-judge panel denied a government appeal to overturn the judge's original order, after rights groups argued that the raids appeared to be arresting people largely based on their race.
While the Supreme Court did not state reasons for its decision, one of the conservative justices, Brett Kavanaugh, wrote a concurring opinion in which he said "illegal immigration is especially pronounced in the Los Angeles area."
One of the three liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, the first Latina named to the court, dissented.
"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," she wrote.
"The Constitution does not permit the creation of such a second-class citizenship status."
(FRANCE 24 with AFP)
01:48
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass described the ruling as an "attack" on civil liberties.
"The rule of law used to mean something not just to us, but to the Supreme Court, but now, with the stroke of a pen, the Supreme Court has undermined the rights of millions," she said.
Earlier this year masked and heavily armed agents began targeting groups of people at home improvement stores, car washes or on farms around Los Angeles, sparking weeks of mostly peaceful protests in the city.
Critics said the raids -- which swept up a number of US citizens, as well as others in the country legally -- were bluntly aimed at anyone who appeared to be Latino or who was speaking Spanish.
Even after the stay order was issued, agents continued to push the boundaries.
In one high-profile case last month ICE agents grabbed more than a dozen people outside a Los Angeles home furnishings store in a "Trojan Horse" raid.
Read moreProtests over Trump's immigration raids spread across the US
Agents sprang from the back of a rented moving truck in an episode filmed by embedded journalists from Fox News.
Last month a three-judge panel denied a government appeal to overturn the judge's original order, after rights groups argued that the raids appeared to be arresting people largely based on their race.
While the Supreme Court did not state reasons for its decision, one of the conservative justices, Brett Kavanaugh, wrote a concurring opinion in which he said "illegal immigration is especially pronounced in the Los Angeles area."
One of the three liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, the first Latina named to the court, dissented.
"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," she wrote.
"The Constitution does not permit the creation of such a second-class citizenship status."
(FRANCE 24 with AFP)
'Frankly outrageous': Dem slams court for using 'shadow docket' to hand Trump another win
September 8, 2025
RAW STORY
CNN screenshot
Democratic strategist Neera Tanden slammed the Supreme Court's decision on Monday to allow immigration officials to use race to decide who to target for immigration actions.
Neera Tanden, CEO of the Center for American Progress, joined CNN's "NewsNight with Abby Phillip" on Monday to discuss the Supreme Court's ruling. Tanden argued that it the court should give a "rationalization" of its decision because of the magnitude of the case.
"The fact that they are providing these decisions without any explanation, while Justice Amy Coney Barrett has time to write a memoir but not a decision, on an issue that affects all of our rights, is frankly outrageous," Tanden said.
"And the truth is, we have no idea whether the Supreme Court is basically sanctioning a system where everyone who is Brown has to come with papers," she continued. "ICE officers can go after every single person. We don't know whether the limit of this decision is or not because they didn't give us any rationalization."
'Horrifying': Supreme Court's 'insane' new ruling sparks immediate outrage
Travis Gettys
September 8, 2025
U.S. Supreme Court justices pose for their group portrait at the Supreme Court in Washington, U.S., October 7, 2022. Seated (L-R): Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Samuel A. Alito, Jr. and Elena Kagan. Standing (L-R): Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson
Travis Gettys
September 8, 2025
ALTERNET
U.S. Supreme Court justices pose for their group portrait at the Supreme Court in Washington, U.S., October 7, 2022. Seated (L-R): Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Samuel A. Alito, Jr. and Elena Kagan. Standing (L-R): Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson
. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein/File Photo
Legal experts were aghast Monday at a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allows immigration agents to continue using racial profiling to stop and detain suspected undocumented migrants.
The court's conservative majority issued a decision without explanation blocking a federal judge's ruling that restricted federal agents' ability to carry out "roving patrols" in the Los Angeles area in response to an emergency request filed by President Donald Trump's administration, drawing a furious dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
“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,” she wrote.
The liberal justice argued the Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which protects against unlawful searches and seizures, should apply to everyone.
"After today, that may no longer be true for those who happen to look a certain way, speak a certain way, and appear to work a certain type of legitimate job that pays very little," Sotomayor wrote.
The conservative majority did not explain the decision, but Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a separate opinion casting doubt on whether a constitutional violation occurred in the challenges to the Trump mass deportation policy.
"Especially in an immigration case like this one, it is also important to stress the proper role of the Judiciary," he wrote. "The Judiciary does not set immigration policy or decide enforcement priorities."
Legal experts, historians and others lambasted Kavanaugh and the rest of the conservative majority.
"License for racial profiling on the basis of people speaking Spanish and with Kavanaugh saying ethnicity can be a 'relevant factor' in immigration stops," posted immigration advocate Thomas Kennedy. "Insane."
"SCOTUS: considering race as one factor in a college applicant's file is blatantly unconstitutional," said Steven Mazie, Supreme Court correspondent for The Economist. "ALSO SCOTUS: considering race as one factor in targeting whom to detain and deport is cool cool cool."
"The Supreme Court today gives Trump a license to engage in racial profiling, with Justice Kavanaugh writing in concurrence to expressly endorse ICE and Border Patrol targeting any Latinos they observe in Los Angeles speaking Spanish and then demanding their papers," added Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council.
"Only Justice Kavanaugh even bothers to write anything to justify this horrifying action," said legal blogger Chris Geidner. "And it is not in any way reassuring."
"Justice Kavanaugh agrees with the America Trump wants to create: One in which all brown people have to walk around with citizenship proof on them at all times, for when there is the inevitable 'papers please' stop," agreed X user Jeremy Wilcox. "This is bleak stuff."
"Justice Kavanaugh writes that ICE agents can use 'apparent ethnicity' and language spoken as a factor when deciding to detain people," added NPR correspondent Tom Dreisbeck. "That could have profound effects on Los Angeles County, where most people are non-white and most speak a language other than English at home."
"The high court’s majority offered no explanation for its decision to green light racial profiling nationwide," opined David J. Bier, director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute. "This is catastrophic for our freedoms and the lawlessness is bound to result in many illegal detentions of Americans and inevitably lead to violence."
"This is one good illustration why diversity on the court matters: Sotomayor can imagine a version of the world where this ruling would affect a younger version of herself, her family and people that look like her. Kavanaugh cannot," wrote University of Michigan professor Dan Moynihan.
"In her dissent today in the case over whether roving patrols of ICE agents in L.A. were stopping & detaining people without reasonable suspicion (Pedro Vasquez Perdomo case), Justice Sotomayor (joined by Kagan & Jackson) twice omitted the word 'respectfully' from her 'I dissent's," noted legal analyst Roger Parloff.
Legal experts were aghast Monday at a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allows immigration agents to continue using racial profiling to stop and detain suspected undocumented migrants.
The court's conservative majority issued a decision without explanation blocking a federal judge's ruling that restricted federal agents' ability to carry out "roving patrols" in the Los Angeles area in response to an emergency request filed by President Donald Trump's administration, drawing a furious dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
“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,” she wrote.
The liberal justice argued the Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which protects against unlawful searches and seizures, should apply to everyone.
"After today, that may no longer be true for those who happen to look a certain way, speak a certain way, and appear to work a certain type of legitimate job that pays very little," Sotomayor wrote.
The conservative majority did not explain the decision, but Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a separate opinion casting doubt on whether a constitutional violation occurred in the challenges to the Trump mass deportation policy.
"Especially in an immigration case like this one, it is also important to stress the proper role of the Judiciary," he wrote. "The Judiciary does not set immigration policy or decide enforcement priorities."
Legal experts, historians and others lambasted Kavanaugh and the rest of the conservative majority.
"License for racial profiling on the basis of people speaking Spanish and with Kavanaugh saying ethnicity can be a 'relevant factor' in immigration stops," posted immigration advocate Thomas Kennedy. "Insane."
"SCOTUS: considering race as one factor in a college applicant's file is blatantly unconstitutional," said Steven Mazie, Supreme Court correspondent for The Economist. "ALSO SCOTUS: considering race as one factor in targeting whom to detain and deport is cool cool cool."
"The Supreme Court today gives Trump a license to engage in racial profiling, with Justice Kavanaugh writing in concurrence to expressly endorse ICE and Border Patrol targeting any Latinos they observe in Los Angeles speaking Spanish and then demanding their papers," added Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council.
"Only Justice Kavanaugh even bothers to write anything to justify this horrifying action," said legal blogger Chris Geidner. "And it is not in any way reassuring."
"Justice Kavanaugh agrees with the America Trump wants to create: One in which all brown people have to walk around with citizenship proof on them at all times, for when there is the inevitable 'papers please' stop," agreed X user Jeremy Wilcox. "This is bleak stuff."
"Justice Kavanaugh writes that ICE agents can use 'apparent ethnicity' and language spoken as a factor when deciding to detain people," added NPR correspondent Tom Dreisbeck. "That could have profound effects on Los Angeles County, where most people are non-white and most speak a language other than English at home."
"The high court’s majority offered no explanation for its decision to green light racial profiling nationwide," opined David J. Bier, director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute. "This is catastrophic for our freedoms and the lawlessness is bound to result in many illegal detentions of Americans and inevitably lead to violence."
"This is one good illustration why diversity on the court matters: Sotomayor can imagine a version of the world where this ruling would affect a younger version of herself, her family and people that look like her. Kavanaugh cannot," wrote University of Michigan professor Dan Moynihan.
"In her dissent today in the case over whether roving patrols of ICE agents in L.A. were stopping & detaining people without reasonable suspicion (Pedro Vasquez Perdomo case), Justice Sotomayor (joined by Kagan & Jackson) twice omitted the word 'respectfully' from her 'I dissent's," noted legal analyst Roger Parloff.
No comments:
Post a Comment