Page 1
U.S. Supreme Court:
Trump Likely to Succeed in Case Against L.A. ‘Roving Patrols’
High Court Stays, Pending Appeal, Temporary Restraining Order Directing Administration to Cease Immigration Raids at Bus Stops, Car Washes, Other Locations, Drawing Dissent
By Kimber Cooley, associate editor
The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday stayed an order barring the Executive Branch from conducting so-called “roving patrols” at places identified as locations frequented by undocumented immigrants in the Los Angeles area—such as bus stops, car washes, and day-laborer sites—or stopping an individual to inquire as to immigration status based on race or language, greenlighting the resumption of Southern California raids by federal authorities.
In a one-paragraph order, the court said:
“The application for stay presented to JUSTICE KAGAN and by her referred to the Court is granted. The July 11, 2025 order entered by the United States District Court for the Central District of California, case No. 2:25—cv-5605, is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought. Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court.”
Yesterday’s order drew both a concurring and a dissenting opinion. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing in support of the stay, opined that the federal government is likely to succeed in the Fourth Amendment challenge to the immigration raids, saying:
“The Government sometimes makes brief investigative stops to check the immigration status of those who gather in locations where people are hired for day jobs; who work or appear to work in jobs such as construction, landscaping, agriculture, or car washes that often do not require paperwork and are therefore attractive to illegal immigrants; and who do not speak much if any English. If the officers learn that the individual they stopped is a U. S. citizen or otherwise lawfully in the United States, they promptly let the individual go. If the individual is illegally in the United States, the officers may arrest the individual and initiate the process for removal.”
July Decree
At issue is a July 11 decree issued by District Court Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong of the Central District of California granting a temporary restraining order in a case brought by various nonprofit organizations and five Los Angeles-area residents who say they were detained during raids over the summer in Los Angeles. They assert that the patrols involved the indiscriminate rounding up of individuals without reasonable suspicion in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
In the order, Frimpong declared that the government “may not rely solely on the [following] factors…, alone or in combination, to form reasonable suspicion for a detentive stop” and listed “[a]pparent race or ethnicity,” “[s]peaking Spanish,” “presence at a particular location,” or “[t]he type of work one does” as prohibited considerations.
After the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the government’s request for a stay pending appeal, U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem asked the high court to pause the enforcement of the restraining order.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned a dissenting opinion, joined in by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Jackson, saying that “it is the people of Los Angeles and the Central District who will suffer from this Court’s grant of relief to the Government.”
Kavanaugh’s View
Kavanaugh noted that “[t]he Government estimates that at least 15 million people are in the United States illegally,” a problem that he said “is especially pronounced in the Los Angeles area.”
He pointed out that “[t]o obtain a stay from this Court, the moving party must demonstrate a fair prospect that, if the District Court’s decision were affirmed on appeal, this Court would…reverse” as well as a likelihood of suffering irreparable harm absent the requested relief. In close cases, he remarked that the high court will also consider the balance of harms and the public interest at stake.
As to the likelihood of success on the merits, he opined:
“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.”
He concluded that the government had shown that it will face irreparable harm without the requested relief, citing “the millions of individuals illegally in the United States [and] the myriad ‘significant economic and social problems’ caused by illegal immigration,” and said:
“Notably, moreover, the District Court’s injunction threatens contempt sanctions against immigration officers who make brief investigative stops later found by the court to violate the injunction. The prospect of such after-the-fact judicial second-guessing and contempt proceedings will inevitably chill lawful immigration enforcement efforts.”
Public Interest
As to the public interest, he reasoned:
“[T]he balance of harms and equities in this case tips in favor of the Government. The interests of individuals who are illegally in the country in avoiding being stopped by law enforcement for questioning is ultimately an interest in evading the law. That is not an especially weighty legal interest.”
Saying that the plaintiffs also “likely lack Article III standing to seek a broad injunction restricting immigration officers from making these investigative stops,” he pointed to the 1983 U.S. Supreme court case in City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, which held that standing to obtain future injunctive relief requires a “reality of the threat of repeated injury.”
Reasoning that the plaintiffs were unlikely to meet this requirement, he said:
“[L]ike in Lyons, plaintiffs have no good basis to believe that law enforcement will unlawfully stop them in the future based on the prohibited factors—and certainly no good basis for believing that any stop of the plaintiffs is imminent. Therefore, they lack Article III standing….”
The jurist added:
“Especially in an immigration case like this one, it is also important to stress the proper role of the Judiciary. The Judiciary does not set immigration policy or decide enforcement priorities….Consistency and neutrality are hallmarks of good judging, and in my view, we abide by those enduring judicial values in this case by granting the stay.”
Sotomayor’s Opinion
Sotomayor wrote:
“In early June, the Government launched immigration enforcement raids across Los Angeles and its surrounding counties. During the raids, teams of armed and masked agents pulled up to car washes, tow yards, farms, and parks and began seizing individuals on sight, often before asking a single question.”
She argued:
“The Government, and now the concurrence, has all but declared that all Latinos, U. S. citizens or not, who work low wage jobs are fair game to be seized at any time, taken away from work, and held until they provide proof of their legal status to the agents’ satisfaction. As the District Court found, and the Government does not meaningfully contest, the present evidence reveals that the…‘seizures occurred based solely upon the four enumerated factors, either alone or in combination.’…The Government now asks this Court to bless that conduct, at least temporarily, by issuing a stay.”
Saying that the Executive Branch has “not demonstrated the necessary likelihood of success on the merits to warrant this Court’s extraordinary intervention,” she opined:
“The Fourth Amendment…prohibits exactly what the Government is attempting to do here: seize individuals based solely on a set of facts that ‘describe[s] a very large category of presumably innocent’ people.”
Issue of Standing
Addressing standing, she remarked:
“[T]he plaintiffs, by doing nothing more than going to work every day, are likely to be seized by agents who are targeting their specific workplaces in accordance with the Government’s practice.”
She declared:
“The Fourth Amendment protects every individual’s constitutional right to be ‘free from arbitrary interference by law officers.’…After today, that 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. Because this is unconscionably irreconcilable with our Nation’s constitutional guarantees, I dissent.”
The case is Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, 25A169.
The White House noted yesterday that the order marks the administration’s 21st victory in the nation’s high court.
Motions requesting a preliminary injunction and class certification are set to be heard in the U.S. District Court on Sept. 24.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company