U.S. Supreme Court backs Trump on aggressive immigration raids

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court again backed President Donald Trump's hardline immigration approach on Monday, letting agents proceed with Southern California raids targeting people for deportation based on their race or language in a decision that a dissenting justice said makes Latinos "fair game to be seized at any time."

The court granted a Justice Department request to put on hold a judge's order temporarily barring agents from stopping or detaining people without "reasonable suspicion" that they are in the country illegally, by relying on race or ethnicity, or if they speak Spanish or English with an accent, among other factors. The administration quickly vowed to continue "roving patrols."

The Supreme Court's three liberal justices publicly dissented, directing pointed criticism at its conservative majority.

The administration "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," Justice Sotomayor wrote in the dissenting opinion.

"Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent," Sotomayor added.

Los Angeles-based U.S. District Judge Maame Frimpong found on July 11 that the Trump administration's actions likely violated the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. The judge's order applied to her court's jurisdiction covering much of Southern California.

The Supreme Court's order was brief and issued without any explanation, a common way it handles emergency matters, but one that has generated confusion in lower courts and criticism from some of the justices themselves. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority.

Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi called Monday's decision a "massive victory," writing on social media that immigration enforcement officers now can "continue carrying out roving patrols in California without judicial micromanagement."

A lawsuit challenging the raids accused the administration of using roving patrols by masked and heavily armed agents who have conducted interrogations and detentions based on racial profiling that resemble "brazen, midday kidnappings."

"Individuals with brown skin are approached or pulled aside by unidentified federal agents, suddenly and with a show of force, and made to answer questions about who they are and where they are from," the lawsuit stated.

A group of Latino people caught up in the raids, including some who are U.S. citizens, filed the proposed class action lawsuit in Los Angeles federal court in July.

'RACISM WITH A BADGE'

Mohammad Tajsar, an attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California who helps represent the plaintiffs, vowed to continue to fight the administration's "racist deportation scheme."

"This decision is a devastating setback for our plaintiffs and communities who, for months, have been subjected to immigration stops because of the color of their skin, occupation, or the language they speak," Tajsar said.

One plaintiff, Pedro Vasquez Perdomo, said in a statement that he joined the case because "what happened to me is happening to others everyday just for being brown, speaking Spanish, or standing on a corner looking for work."

He said that agents did not explain why they grabbed him, and that they did not have a warrant.

"I was treated like I didn't matter - locked up, cold, hungry and without a lawyer. Now, the Supreme Court says that's okay? That's not justice. That's racism with a badge," he said.

Concurring with Monday's decision, conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that "apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion" but it can be a "'relevant factor' when considered along with other salient factors."

Kavanaugh added: "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."

Trump's administration has repeatedly asked the Supreme Court this year to allow it to proceed with policies that lower courts have impeded after casting doubt on their legality.

The court has backed Trump in most of these cases. For instance, it has allowed Trump to deport migrants to countries other than their own without offering a chance to show harms they may face and to revoke temporary legal status previously granted by the government on humanitarian grounds to hundreds of thousands of migrants.

PROMISES OF DEPORTATIONS

Trump won election last year to a second term as president with promises of record-level deportations. His administration's immigration raids, including in Los Angeles, have prompted panic in immigrant communities as well as protests, and have drawn lawsuits over aggressive tactics.

Trump sent National Guard troops and U.S. Marines into Los Angeles in June in response to protests against the federal immigration raids, marking an extraordinary use of military force within the United States to support civilian police operations.

Local officials and California Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, contested the deployment as unlawful and unnecessary.

Frimpong issued the temporary restraining order halting stops or arrests based on race, language, presence at a particular location such as a car wash or tow yard, or type of work to establish "reasonable suspicion" of illegality. The judge was appointed by Democratic former President Joe Biden.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Aug. 1 refused to lift Frimpong's order.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2025.