Supreme Court Allows ICE to Resume Los Angeles Enforcement Operations

(LOS ANGELES) The Supreme Court cleared the way for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to resume broad enforcement operations across Los Angeles, issuing a 6–3 order that lifts a lower court’s limits on stops and worksite raids while a major case proceeds on appeal. The temporary stay, handed down on September 8–9, allows ICE agents to restart “roving patrols” at bus stops, day labor sites, and workplaces and to factor language, accent, job type, and location into their “reasonable suspicion” calculus. The ruling remains in place until the 9th Circuit decides the underlying dispute in Perdomo v. Noem.

The decision immediately reshapes on-the-ground enforcement in one of the country’s largest immigrant hubs. Since June 6, the Department of Homeland Security says more than 5,210 arrests have been made in the Los Angeles area, even as prior court orders had narrowed enforcement.

Those limits centered on evidence that some stops relied on appearance, language, and location—practices a federal judge had found likely unconstitutional. With the Supreme Court’s order, ICE has regained broad discretion while litigation continues.

What the Supreme Court’s majority said

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, emphasized that officers must still meet the “reasonable suspicion” standard before detaining someone, but may consider the “totality of the circumstances.” That can include the high number of undocumented residents in the region and the types of jobs and locations where people gather.

The Los Angeles field office, led by Gregory Bovino, has already signaled it will intensify operations. DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin and Acting Director Lyons praised the ruling, promising to “flood the zone” across the county in the days ahead.

Scale and local reaction

• Advocacy groups estimate nearly 1 million undocumented immigrants live in the Los Angeles area.
• The broader regional population approaches 20 million, with about half identifying as Hispanic or Latino.

Local officials warned the decision could shake trust in city services and law enforcement. Mayor Karen Bass criticized the operations as disruptive and harmful to community safety. Civil rights lawyers said they were preparing emergency response teams to track arrests and provide legal help.

Supporters—aligned with the Trump administration’s approach—argue the Supreme Court restored the federal government’s ability to enforce immigration law without “judicial micromanagement.” President Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem have made aggressive enforcement in California a priority, framing it as a core public safety issue. Attorney General Pam Bondi and border czar Tom Homan lauded the order as overdue.

Opponents, including the ACLU, Public Counsel, and the National Immigration Law Center, called the ruling a green light for racial profiling. They warned that U.S. citizens and lawful residents risk wrongful detention during large-scale operations, pointing to prior cases where mass sweeps caught people with legal status. They also emphasized that nothing in the order changes basic due process rights for people questioned by ICE.

The Supreme Court’s action is a temporary procedural stay — not a final judgment on whether the challenged tactics are lawful.

What the Supreme Court allowed

The 6–3 ruling lifts a July order from U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong that had curbed specific tactics pending a fuller legal review. With the stay in place, ICE can:

1. Run roving patrols and conduct stops at:
   • bus stops
   • car washes
   • day labor pickup sites
   • agricultural fields
   • workplaces, including big-box locations and manufacturing shops
2. Treat language, accent, type of work, and presence at certain locations as factors that—taken together—may support “reasonable suspicion” of unlawful presence.

3. Resume large-scale operations across Los Angeles while the 9th Circuit reviews constitutional claims about racial profiling and indiscriminate stops.

Legally, the order does not resolve whether these practices violate the Fourth Amendment or equal protection guarantees. Legal scholars stress this distinction: the Supreme Court’s action is procedural, restoring ICE’s operational freedom until the appeals court rules on the merits.

In practical terms, the most visible change will be the return of tactics that had been partially paused through the summer. Community reports since June describe agents using unmarked vehicles, approaching groups at day labor corners, and making arrests in and around retail parking lots. Analysis by VisaVerge.com suggests those patterns are likely to expand given the new legal leeway.

Community impact and rights during encounters

The ramp-up is generating fear among mixed-status families, parents on school runs, and workers who gather before dawn at pickup sites. Workers at car washes and small manufacturing shops said they are spreading the word about “know your rights” steps.

Commonly recommended steps include:

• Keep doors closed unless officers present a judge-signed warrant.
• Ask agents to slide the warrant under the door or show it through a window.
• State a desire to speak to a lawyer.

It’s important to restate what the Supreme Court’s order does not change:

• Right to remain silent: People questioned by ICE do not have to answer questions about immigration status or country of birth.
• Right to a lawyer: Individuals can ask to speak with an attorney; the government does not provide free lawyers in immigration proceedings.
• Home entry requires a judicial warrant: Agents need a warrant signed by a judge to enter a home without consent. Administrative warrants (forms signed by DHS) do not allow forced entry.
• Carry-a-plan advice: Advocates recommend families keep key phone numbers handy, tell children and caregivers who to call if someone is detained, and prepare copies of important documents.

These rights apply regardless of the temporary stay. Still, community groups reported confusion about when someone must show ID, whether workers must speak to agents in parking lots, and what counts as consent to search. Lawyers caution that opening a door even a few inches or stepping outside can be interpreted as consent to talk. Recommended tactics include speaking through a door, asking to see a warrant, and clearly stating, “I do not consent to a search.”

Local government leaders are trying to balance cooperation with federal law and commitments to public safety. The city continues policies that limit when local police share certain information with federal authorities. But even where local agencies keep a distance, the Supreme Court’s action means federal agents can operate widely across public places in Los Angeles.

What happens next — courts and on-the-ground developments

Perdomo v. Noem now moves to the 9th Circuit to decide whether the Constitution allows factors like language, accent, and location to carry weight in stops and detentions. The appeals court’s timeline is not fixed; further stays or en banc review are possible. If the 9th Circuit blocks portions of ICE’s tactics again, the issue could return to the Supreme Court.

Key points to watch:

• Scope of reasonable suspicion: Whether “totality of circumstances” can include traits closely tied to ethnicity or national origin.
• Evidence of wrongful detentions: Opponents highlight risks to U.S. citizens, DACA recipients, asylum seekers with pending cases, and green card holders. Documented mistaken arrests will likely be central in appellate briefs.
• Data transparency: Civil rights groups are seeking detailed records of stops, arrests, and releases. ICE typically releases aggregate numbers; advocates want more granular data on who was detained and why. Since June, DHS reports over 5,210 arrests in the area.
• Local response: Protests are expected to continue. Los Angeles legal nonprofits are expanding hotlines and rapid-response teams to meet increased demand for advice and representation.

Supporters of the order argue sanctuary-style limits encouraged unlawful presence and smuggling networks, and that the ruling strengthens deterrence—especially at worksites where unlawful hiring may undercut wages and fairness. They note federal officers must still meet legal standards in each stop and can face consequences for violations.

Community preparations and resources

Even with the legal fight unresolved, families are already taking precautions:

• Parents are arranging backup pickups for children.
• Workers are traveling in groups.
• Community centers are running evening sessions on rights during encounters and how to locate a detained family member.
• Faith leaders are setting up networks to check on seniors and deliver groceries if a caregiver is detained.

For official information about ICE’s role and procedures, consult the agency’s website at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It explains detention, removal, and field office contacts, and provides links to check detainee location.

Community groups can supplement this with hotlines and local clinics, but only the government can confirm custody status or scheduled hearings.

Political stakes and concluding note

The politics are likely to intensify. The Trump administration’s allies say the order vindicates broader policy goals and could shape federal-state relations into the next election cycle. Critics counter that the ruling risks normalizing stops tied to race or ethnicity and will push immigrant communities deeper into the shadows, making them hesitant to report crimes or cooperate with first responders.

In a region where nearly half of residents identify as Hispanic or Latino, these issues directly affect public safety for the entire city.

What remains certain is the narrowness of the Supreme Court’s action: it is a temporary stay, not a stamp of approval for every tactic now in use. The 9th Circuit will decide whether the Constitution allows the factors ICE is now permitted to weigh. Until then, operations across Los Angeles will likely grow, families will take extra precautions, and lawyers will prepare for a flood of court challenges—one stop at a time.