The U.S. Supreme Court has overturned a restraining order that had blocked federal immigration agents from detaining individuals based solely on perceived ethnicity, language, or workplace. The unsigned order allows the Department of Homeland Security to resume immigration sweeps in the Los Angeles area and raises questions about similar restrictions in California’s Central Valley.
The ruling supports President Donald Trump’s approach to immigration enforcement, which has included raids at locations such as farms, parking lots, and car washes. These operations have often targeted people who appear Latino or work in low-wage jobs where proof of eligibility may not be required.
This decision is part of an ongoing series of legal battles over federal immigration raids in California. Recently, a San Francisco judge found the administration’s use of the National Guard for immigration enforcement in Los Angeles illegal—a decision now under review by the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass criticized the Supreme Court’s move, stating: “I want the entire nation to hear me when I say this isn’t just an attack on the people of Los Angeles, this is an attack on every person in every city in this country,” Bass said in an emailed statement. “Today’s ruling is not only dangerous – it’s un-American and threatens the fabric of personal freedom in the United States of America.”
The court’s majority consisted of six conservative justices who reversed a July 11 temporary restraining order issued by Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong. The policy can continue while litigation proceeds.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissent joined by two other liberal justices, warning against eroding constitutional protections against arbitrary arrests.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh provided a concurring opinion supporting ethnicity as one factor among others for reasonable suspicion during immigration stops. He noted that many undocumented immigrants live and work in Los Angeles and are often found at specific job sites.
“To be clear, apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion,” he wrote. “Under this court’s case law regarding immigration stops, however, it can be a ‘relevant factor’ when considered along with other salient factors.”
Kavanaugh also argued that government interests outweighed brief detentions if individuals could later prove their legal status.
Sotomayor disagreed strongly: “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.
“Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent,” Sotomayor wrote.
The original restraining order covered seven Southern California counties—Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo—where nearly 10 million Latinos reside and many speak languages other than English at home.
A separate federal case continues in Fresno before Judge Jennifer Thurston regarding similar practices targeting individuals based on ethnicity or workplace. The United Farmworkers Union and ACLU recently requested stricter enforcement ahead of an October hearing.
