Monday witnessed a new victory for the U.S. administration led by President Donald Trump, as the Supreme Court issued a decision facilitating extensive immigration operations in Los Angeles. The judicial institution’s conservative majority counteracted a restraining order previously given by a judge, who had found that unrestricted ‘roving patrols’ were conducting indiscriminate stops around the city.
The initial order had forbidden immigration officers from stopping individuals based solely on their racial background, language, profession or location. Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed that this order was overly restrictive in limiting the measures Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents could take in conducting brief stop-and-question activities.
In Kavanaugh’s written concurrence with the brief unexplained order of the majority, it was emphasized that ethnicity alone cannot serve as a reasonable suspicion. Nonetheless, under the current Court’s orders pertaining to immigration stops, apparent ethnicity can be taken into consideration as a ‘relevant factor’ along with other significant elements.
The justice further hinted that there could be increased legal challenges against stops that involve the use of force. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, on the other hand, strongly critiqued the decision along with two other liberal justices. She criticised the perceived outcome in her dissent, pointing to the undue invasiveness suffered by many in the Los Angeles region in the form of unwarranted force and detentions due to their racial profiles, linguistic characteristics, and labor occupations.
The recent verdict by the Supreme Court coincides with ICE’s escalated enforcement policy in Washington. This is concurrent with President Trump’s unique national control over the capital’s law enforcement, including the deployment of the National Guard.
The Republican administration under Trump argued that the restraining order was incorrectly obstructing ICE agents’ efforts to crack down on illegal immigration at scale. The order was initially put in place by U.S. District Judge Maame E. Frimpong, who found ample evidence suggesting that the enforcement techniques were infringing upon constitutional rights.
The lawsuit’s plaintiffs included American citizens caught up in these immigration stops. Further proceedings of the lawsuit will now continue in California. Advocacy groups representing immigrants initially filed the lawsuit, alleging racial targeting by the Trump administration amidst their concentrated efforts to contain illegal immigration in the Los Angeles area.
These groups indicated a systematic targeting of brown-skinned people during these operations. In response, Department of Homeland Security attorneys maintained that enforcement was based on unlawful residency and not factors like skin color or ethnicity. Furthermore, the Justice Department claimed that the order was unlawfully limiting the considerations ICE could use when deciding who to stop.
Los Angeles has been a focal point of conflict under the Trump administration, given its stringent immigration policy that drew widespread protests and led to the National Guard’s deployment. Following the judgement by Judge Frimpong in July, the frequency of immigration raids appeared to dwindle momentarily, but has since resumed, including an operation where agents carried out arrests at an Home Depot store from a rented box truck.
Plaintiffs posited that Frimpong’s order prohibited federal agents from making stops without having any reasonable suspicion, a condition that aligns with constitutional law and Supreme Court precedent. The lawsuit stated: ‘Numerous U.S. citizens and others who are lawfully present in this country have been subjected to significant intrusions on their liberty. Many have been physically injured; at least two were taken to a holding facility’.
The Trump administration’s view on the matter was different, arguing that the order was overly restrictive and put agents at risk of punishment if the court felt they lacked additional factors justifying a stop. In addition, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that the order could not be maintained under the Court’s recent decision limiting universal injunctions, although this argument was refuted by the plaintiffs.
Frimpong’s order, underpinned by President Joe Biden’s nomination, prohibited authorities from using factors like apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone’s occupation as the only grounds for reasonable suspicion for detention.
This ruling encompassed nearly 20 million people, close to half of whom identify as Hispanic or Latino. Among the plaintiffs were three detained immigrants and two U.S. citizens. Brian Gavidia, a Los Angeles resident and one of the U.S. citizens involved, could be seen in a June 13 video being apprehended by federal agents.
The agents eventually released Gavidia around 20 minutes into his detention after he showed them his identification. A similar situation occurred for another citizen who was stopped at a car wash. These instances underline the controversy and high stakes nature of this ongoing legal conflict over immigration enforcement practices.
The post New Supreme Court Ruling Facilitates Immigration Operations appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
