The Supreme Court on Monday granted a Justice Department emergency request, clearing the way for federal agents to resume sweeping immigration raids in Los Angeles by temporarily lifting a lower-court order that had restricted stops and detentions absent "reasonable suspicion." The 6-3 decision overruled U.S. District Judge Maame Frimpong’s July 11 injunction, which had found the administration’s planned tactics likely to violate the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that "apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion," but said it may be a "relevant factor" when considered with other salient information. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. In her written dissent, Sotomayor called the majority’s use of the court’s emergency docket "another grave misuse of our emergency docket" and warned against a practice that would permit the government "to seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job."
Judge Frimpong’s July order had barred federal agents from stopping or detaining people in Los Angeles without individualized reasonable suspicion that they were in the country unlawfully. The Biden administration’s stay effectively removes that constraint while litigation continues, allowing Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal agencies to carry out planned operations in the region.
The emergency stay does not represent a final resolution of the constitutional issues raised by the district court. Emergency relief from the Supreme Court typically pauses lower-court rulings while appeals proceed and the parties press for further review. The Justice Department had argued that pausing the injunction was necessary to permit immediate enforcement of immigration laws and to implement the administration’s broader deportation priorities.
Civil rights groups, immigrant advocates and some local officials had urged courts to block broad-enforcement tactics, contending they risk racial profiling and unlawful seizures. Those concerns underpinned Judge Frimpong’s finding that the planned approach likely ran afoul of the Fourth Amendment. Supporters of the administration’s operations argued they are needed to enforce federal immigration statutes and remove individuals who lack legal status.
The Supreme Court’s action signals the conservative majority’s willingness to permit more robust enforcement measures while litigation proceeds. The decision came amid a high-profile national effort by the administration to expand removals, and it sets the stage for continued litigation over the constitutional limits on immigration enforcement tactics in densely populated urban areas such as Los Angeles.
The court’s stay will remain in effect as the case advances through the federal courts, where the underlying constitutional questions are expected to be further briefed and argued. The dispute pits competing legal claims about Fourth Amendment protections against government arguments about the scope of federal immigration authority and the practical needs of enforcement operations.