The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday temporarily cleared the way for the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement to resume immigration enforcement raids in California, issuing a 6-3 emergency order while litigation continues in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
A federal judge in July had blocked ICE from conducting targeted workplace and home raids in Los Angeles County, finding the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on a Fourth Amendment claim that federal officers were stopping people without valid cause. The Ninth Circuit left that injunction in place, and the Biden administration appealed to the Supreme Court seeking immediate relief.
The high court's order, released without an accompanying opinion, allows the Trump administration to continue carrying out immigration enforcement actions in California while the underlying case proceeds. The decision was issued along ideological lines, with three justices dissenting.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed the dissent, calling the emergency order "troubling" and saying the majority offered no explanation for its move. In a sharply worded passage, she wrote that the decision was "unconscionably irreconcilable" with constitutional protections and warned, "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."
The litigation centers on claims brought by local leaders and advocacy groups that ICE agents were conducting stops and arrests without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, violating the Fourth Amendment's guard against unreasonable searches and seizures. Plaintiffs sought a nationwide or regional injunction after a Los Angeles federal judge preliminarily barred the agency from certain enforcement tactics in June and July.
Federal authorities had argued that the injunction hindered their ability to enforce immigration laws and protect public safety. The administration asked the Ninth Circuit to lift the limits; when that court declined, it turned to the Supreme Court for emergency relief.
The court's temporary order does not resolve the substantive constitutional questions. The Ninth Circuit will continue to consider the merits of the case, and the Supreme Court's action leaves in place the prospect of further appeals and briefing that could determine the longer-term scope of federal immigration enforcement in sanctuary jurisdictions.
The decision comes amid heightened national debate over immigration policy and enforcement tactics, especially in jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Local officials and immigrant-rights groups have documented demonstrations and community opposition to ICE operations in Los Angeles and other California communities.
For now, the emergency order permits ICE to proceed with enforcement actions in California while appellate courts review the case. The underlying constitutional and statutory questions could take months to resolve through the Ninth Circuit and possibly the Supreme Court if the high court accepts full briefing and arguments later in the litigation.
The Supreme Court's brief emergency actions typically resolve immediate disputes over whether lower-court rulings should remain in force pending appeal; they do not substitute for the full appellate process. The narrow, temporary nature of the order leaves unsettled how federal immigration enforcement will operate in sanctuary or near-sanctuary jurisdictions over the long term.