Supreme Court Clears Way for ICE to Detain People in Los Angeles Based on Looks, Labor Sites or Language

The Supreme Court handed the Trump administration a major victory this week, ruling that ICE agents in Los Angeles and across Southern California may detain individuals suspected of being in the country illegally based on outward signs such as appearance, workplace or language. The decision, reached by a 6–3 vote, lifted a lower court order that had temporarily restricted so-called roving patrols from operating in the region.

At the center of the case is the president’s long-promised plan for what he has described as the largest mass deportation effort in American history. Beginning in June, heavily armed federal agents began conducting aggressive street sweeps across Los Angeles, targeting places like car washes, construction sites and parking lots, reported Los Angeles Times. Those operations quickly drew lawsuits after legal residents and even U.S. citizens were caught up in the arrests.

In July, a federal district judge blocked the practice, ruling that immigration stops based solely on race, language or employment violated the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit upheld that order later in the month, citing evidence that some plaintiffs had been stopped multiple times in just a few days. Local governments also joined the legal challenge, warning that nearly half the residents of the Central District of California could fall under the government’s broad definition of “reasonable suspicion.”

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority sided with the administration, granting its emergency appeal. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that federal law allows immigration officers to briefly detain and question individuals if there is reasonable suspicion, based on articulable facts, that the person is unlawfully present. He argued that such practices have long been part of immigration enforcement under both Republican and Democratic administrations.

The Court’s three liberal justices dissented. Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a forceful objection, warning that the ruling would expose millions of Latinos and other minority groups to arbitrary detention. “We should not have to live in a country where the government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish or appears to work a low-wage job,” she wrote.

Immigrant rights advocates say the decision paves the way for profiling based on ethnicity and language, raising fears in a region where more than 10 million Latinos live and nearly as many residents speak a language other than English at home. Civil rights groups cautioned that granting such broad authority essentially authorizes dragnet policing, with the potential to disrupt families, workplaces and entire communities.

For the Trump administration, the ruling removes a significant obstacle to carrying out its plan. Government lawyers argued that even a temporary block on mass arrests caused irreparable harm to federal enforcement efforts. Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the Court that reasonable suspicion is a low threshold, far below probable cause, and agents should be permitted to consider the totality of circumstances when making stops.

Local leaders across Southern California voiced concerns over the ruling. Los Angeles and 20 neighboring municipalities said the standard adopted by the federal government casts suspicion over nearly half of the region’s residents. The fear, they said, is that lawful immigrants and U.S. citizens alike may be detained simply for speaking Spanish or working in industries historically associated with immigrant labor.

The case remains active in lower courts, with hearings scheduled this month on whether the restrictions blocked earlier this summer should be permanently reinstated. In the meantime, the Supreme Court’s decision allows federal agents to continue their operations. Reports from Los Angeles describe officers in tactical gear surrounding worksites, questioning laborers in parking lots, and in one instance leaping from the back of a moving truck to detain suspected immigrants.

Immigrant advocates insist they will keep fighting. They argue the raids represent an unconstitutional pattern of enforcement that places millions of law-abiding residents at risk. For now, however, the ruling underscores the vast powers the federal government holds in immigration enforcement and sets the stage for a new wave of mass detentions in Southern California.