The U.S. Supreme Court quietly granted an emergency order on Sept. 8 that allows the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to conduct arrests in the Los Angeles area based on race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish, speaking with an accent and working in construction or landscaping jobs. This case, now known as Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, has caused major concern within the Hispanic/Latino community as some fear that ICE agents can now stop and detain them simply because of the way they look.
Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo arose when a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting ICE from detaining people at construction sites, car washes, tow yards, day-laborer sites, bus stops, farms and public parks. In response, President Donald Trump’s administration asked for an emergency application for stay — a court order that temporarily halts a lower court’s decision due to its urgency. SCOTUS granted the government’s request through a shadow docket without notifying the public or conducting oral arguments or briefings.
Under the Fourth Amendment, an individual is entitled to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; however, an officer may conduct a brief investigative detention if they have reasonable suspicion to believe an individual has been involved in criminal activity. Reasonable suspicion must arise from the totality of the circumstances, facts and rational inferences at the time of encounter.
In a 6-3 vote, Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered a concurring opinion. He argued that any claim of immigration officers acting unconstitutionally is invalid, given that race, location and language create the totality of circumstances that justifies reasonable suspicion. To stop an individual for brief questioning about their immigration status, the government must have reasonable suspicion that the individual is present in the U.S. illegally. In this case, the concurring opinion believes that the high percentage of immigrants in Los Angeles who are working jobs that do not require paperwork and do not speak English is sufficient reasonable suspicion to question some about their citizenship status. While Kavanaugh acknowledges that race or ethnicity alone is not enough to establish reasonable suspicion, he believes it should still be considered relevant.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered the dissenting opinion, warning that this ruling would subject Latinos to second-class citizenship and normalize racial profiling and discrimination.
Sotomayor further stressed that this decision undermines and betrays the reasonable suspicion requirement of the Fourth Amendment and shifts the burden onto citizens to carry enough documentation to “prove they deserve to walk away freely.” She states, “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.”
Following the deportations taking place, California lawmakers passed a bill on Sept. 11 that, on Sept. 20, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed and approved. This bill, “No Secret Police Act,” makes it a misdemeanor for law enforcement to avoid identification by wearing facial coverings. This new law explains that the use of facial coverings, whether intentional or not, causes fear and limits nonverbal communication that undermines public trust. Most notably, it emphasizes the importance of accountability that an officer must have while on duty. The No Secret Police Act will go into effect in approximately three months on Jan. 1, 2026.
The Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo order is not a final ruling; however, it means that ICE agents now have legal grounds to question and detain people based on appearance, language and type of work. It does not just put stress on the Hispanic/Latino community but also businesses that are at risk of workplace raids and being seen as non-compliant with immigration laws. While the stay remains in place, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of California will continue to review this case. If the Ninth Circuit upholds the district court’s decision, then SCOTUS will likely take on the case and issue a judgment. For ongoing updates, visit our website at paisano-online.com.
