Supreme Court Embraces Racial Profiling By ICE In LA
Source: HuffPost
Sep 8, 2025, 11:46 AM EDT
In a decision that rubber-stamps racial profiling by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in Los Angeles and could accelerate deportations across America the Supreme Court on Monday ruled that federal agents do not need reasonable suspicion to target someone for immigration detention, leaving the door open for any rationale immigration agents choose to use, including racial profiling.
The ruling comes after the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to block an order from a lower court that prohibited agents from using four racially loaded categories to justify arrests: apparent ethnicity, language spoken or accent, presence at a location where immigrants were believed to gather, or working in a particular kind of job. The order had snaked through the high courts emergency, or shadow, docket since Aug. 7.
The decision overturns an order by U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong that had temporarily halted ICE agents in Los Angeles from making arrests or stops without reasonable suspicion. U.S. citizens and immigrants had been detained under the Trump administrations directive to the Department of Homeland Security, often by masked and sometimes armed men. Frimpong found those raids were done illegally and, specifically, in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Read more: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/supreme-court-ice-la-racial-profiling_n_68bb4ac8e4b0a78951966a29?origin=home-latest-news-unit

WestMichRad
(2,609 posts)
of our constitution, in the name of the king.
angrychair
(11,127 posts)So does this dissolve the equal protection clause of the Constitution? Can regular police racial profile now as well?
This ruling was intended for immigration raids only.
angrychair
(11,127 posts)There was no majority opinion, therefore your contention is unsubstantiated.
There is no way to even extrapolate that its only immigration raids. I don't think there is a lot of firm conclusions you can get from this but green lighting overt racism.
cbabe
(5,569 posts)saying, well, I think theyre suspicious.
Driving that car is suspicious. Walking on that sidewalk is suspicious. And on.
Now cops/ice dont even need that.
Gestapo klan.
oldmanlynn
(721 posts)And so we could be in jail for months until they finally found out that. Oh well this is just a regular American citizen and he was just out walking around. Crazy world that we live in right now.
vapor2
(3,065 posts)Dem2theMax
(10,986 posts)Not enough money to do so.
NotHardly
(2,150 posts)Bayard
(26,974 posts)Gawd forbid any of those 3 retire or die while trump is still king.
Bohunk68
(1,405 posts)but remember that 5 of those 6 are Roman Catholic, and said to be Opus Dei. They have similar beliefs as do Barrett and the rest of the reich wing. The christofascism runs deep.
Fiendish Thingy
(20,767 posts)dalton99a
(90,210 posts)twodogsbarking
(15,756 posts)Quanto Magnus
(1,255 posts)are racist MAGAts. Why is anyone surprised at this point?
LetMyPeopleVote
(169,765 posts)Democratic appointees in dissent said the move is unconscionably irreconcilable with our Nations constitutional guarantees.
Supreme Court GOP majority grants Trump administration request for âroving patrolsâ Supreme Court GOP majority grants Trump administration request for âroving patrolsâ www.msnbc.com/deadline-whi...
— 7Veritas4 (@justjonz.bsky.social) 2025-09-08T16:15:43.571Z
https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/supreme-court-los-angeles-roving-patrols-emergency-relief-trump-rcna224611
The high courts three Democratic appointees dissented from the unexplained majority order Monday, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor writing for the trio that the Fourth Amendments historical protections from arbitrary government interference may no longer be true for those who happen to look a certain way, speak a certain way, and appear to work a certain type of legitimate job that pays very little. She called the majoritys move unconscionably irreconcilable with our Nations constitutional guarantees......
Opposing emergency high court relief, the plaintiffs countered that the judges order broke no new legal ground, writing that it does not prevent the government from enforcing the immigration laws, conducting consensual encounters, or relying on any or all of the four factors along with other facts to form reasonable suspicion.
They further wrote that the administrations extraordinary claim that it can get very close to justifying a seizure of any Latino person in the Central District [of California] because of the asserted number of Latino people there who are not legally present is anathema to the Constitution.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(128,643 posts)The article I read tried to soft sell this.
Cirsium
(2,866 posts)No more need for any more "are we there yet?" speculation now.
dalton99a
(90,210 posts)surfered
(9,207 posts)Buddyzbuddy
(1,455 posts)This isn't just about brown people like me. It's about all obviously white males being exempt, period. Not just obvious minorities but also all women can be stopped, frisked and questioned in states with laws against abortion. Think about it.
Welcome to my world. "We asked you nicely", not to vote for him, "now youse can't leave." It's just a matter of time.
Oh, and those pesky laws about pedophelia, rich white guys, don't worry about them. Have at it, you're exempt.
Slavery, back on the books in no time.
It's a trickle now, but the flood is coming thanks to 6 King makers on the Supreme Court. That includes one black male that won't live to see what his vote has done and one white female that will get a box seat to watch what her work has done.
Stupid, stupid, stupid voters.
annielion
(67 posts)I wonder if it would do any good if people all over the country began sending postcards to the Supreme Court regarding their unconstitutional rulings. If there were enough postcards, short and to the point, I wonder if that would help. Post offices would see the messages and perhaps if there were enough messages, the 6 traitors would pay attention. I don't know. I don't have a lot of ideas here.
Grokenstein
(6,141 posts)the trumpniks on the court need to be snagged off the street by masked hoodlums and disappeared into some lawless dump on the other side of the planet with only the clothes on their backs. If that.
Grumpy Old Guy
(4,073 posts)We should do it everyday to call attention to this corruption and hypocrisy.
Scalded Nun
(1,495 posts)IzzaNuDay
(1,121 posts)Put a Mexican flag on my car. And because Im a little bit bilingual daring ICE to F with me.
DemUrLight
(3 posts)The divided states supreme courts once again proves they are racist fascist. if the Dems don't pull their heads out their asses and actually do something about this corrupt system when elected again they will too have failed the people once again. This shit has to come to an end. Term limits and age limits plus they need to be put in jail if they even consider doing the shit Clarence and his wife has done. WTF America you are showing how the country has never been wand too tight because it is taking less than a year to unravel the little piece of shit of the laws we have in place!
Abundance77
(22 posts)The Supreme Court's decision today is Mitch's legacy.
DBoon
(24,282 posts)Hispanics are a huge population in LA, probably well over a majority at least in central areas any many suburbs.
They could incarcerate entire neighborhoods based on this ruling.
republianmushroom
(21,371 posts)Who would have thunk it.
mahatmakanejeeves
(66,704 posts)Reposted by Mike Masnick
https://bsky.app/profile/mmasnick.bsky.social
@normative.bsky.social
Among myriad problems with this ruling, can we pause to appreciate the childlike naïveté exhibited by Cavanaugh on the barely-worth-mentioning inconvenience of being detained and interogated by ICE? We are approaching Plessy levels of obtuseness, or feigned obtuseness.
Kavanaugh: Under this Court's precedents, not to mention common sense, those circumstances taken together can constitute at least reasonable suspicion of illegal presence in the United States. Importantly, reasonable suspicion means only that immigration officers may briefly stop the individual and inquire about immigration status. If the person is a U.S. citizen or otherwise lawfully in the United States, that individual will be free to go after the brief encounter. Only if the person is illegally in the United States may the stop lead to further immigration proceedings.
ALT
September 8, 2025 at 4:01 PM
Among myriad problems with this ruling, can we pause to appreciate the childlike naïveté exhibited by Cavanaugh on the barely-worth-mentioning inconvenience of being detained and interogated by ICE? We are approaching Plessy levels of obtuseness, or feigned obtuseness.
— Julian Sanchez (@normative.bsky.social) 2025-09-08T20:01:45.536Z