The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in Los Angeles may rely on apparent race, language and other factors when deciding whom to stop, reversing a lower-court injunction in a 6-3 order issued on the court’s "shadow docket." The decision, in Noem v. Perdomo, clears the way for ICE agents to use several criteria, alone or in combination, in conducting immigration stops.
The Republican-appointed majority overturned an injunction that had barred ICE officers in Los Angeles from basing stops on any of four factors: a person’s apparent race or ethnicity; speaking Spanish or accented English; presence in a particular location; and the type of work the person appeared to be doing. The order did not resolve the underlying merits of the dispute and leaves open the possibility that the case could return to the justices for full briefing and argument.
The decision comes amid intense federal enforcement activity in Los Angeles earlier this year, when ICE conducted high-profile raids that prompted widespread protests and led President Donald Trump to federalize the California National Guard in response. Reports and protesters said some federal agents deployed military-style weapons and equipment during operations, and in some incidents officers used flash-bang devices around bystanders.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, criticizing the court’s use of its emergency docket. "That decision is yet another grave misuse of our emergency docket," Sotomayor wrote. She warned that the order threatens to permit the government "to seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job," and cautioned that the decision risks creating "a second-class citizenship status" for some U.S. citizens and lawful residents.
The majority's order reversed the lower-court restraint on ICE tactics but did not supply a full opinion explaining the rationale. The action reflects the court’s use of the shadow docket, a set of expedited orders and summary decisions that are typically issued without full briefing or oral argument and have drawn scrutiny from some justices and outside observers.
Legal questions at issue in Noem v. Perdomo center on the extent to which federal immigration enforcement may rely on observable characteristics and contextual factors when selecting individuals for stops, and on the standards courts may use to enjoin agency practices that plaintiffs say violate constitutional or statutory rights. Because Monday’s order did not resolve the merits, lower courts and the parties could press the underlying case, which may return to the Supreme Court for a definitive ruling.
Advocates for immigrants and civil liberties groups have argued that permitting stops based on race, language or appearance would enable discriminatory policing and wrongful detentions. Supporters of robust federal immigration enforcement contend that officers must be able to consider contextual indicators in carrying out their duties. The immediate practical effect of Monday’s order is to allow ICE agents in Los Angeles to resume using the four specified factors in determining whom to stop while litigation continues.