(LOS ANGELES) The U.S. Supreme Court on September 8, 2025, in a 6-3 decision, lifted limits on federal immigration enforcement in Southern California, clearing the way for the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement to restart wide-ranging operations in and around Los Angeles. The ruling grants a stay of a lower court order that had blocked agents from conducting “roving patrols” and making stops based on combined factors such as race, language, location, or occupation. The case, filed as Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem (No. 25A169), now returns to the district court, where a hearing on a potential preliminary injunction is set for September 24, 2025.
Legal background and ruling details
U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong previously issued an injunction after finding what she described as “a mountain of evidence” that federal agents had made stops raising Fourth Amendment concerns, including targeting people by race, language, and occupation. The Ninth Circuit had left that order in place until the SCOTUS stay.
With the stay now in effect, ICE and DHS regain broader discretion to conduct stops and sweeps across Los Angeles County and neighboring areas. This includes locations such as:
- Day labor sites
- Car washes
- Farms
- Bus stops
The federal government argued its actions are lawful and focused on immigration violations, not race or ethnicity. It contends officers may rely on a combination of factors—sometimes including apparent ethnicity—to reach reasonable suspicion. Supporters of the stay say prior court limits had chilled lawful operations and left officers uncertain about what actions they could take on the street.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, concurring, emphasized the executive branch’s duty to enforce immigration laws and warned that second-guessing field decisions would “inevitably chill lawful immigration enforcement efforts.” The dissent, led by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, cautioned that the ruling “erodes constitutional freedoms” and risks exposing people to stops “simply because of their looks, their accents, and the fact they make a living by doing manual labor.”
Important to note: the order is temporary. It lifts the lower court’s restrictions while the underlying case proceeds. The next phase will allow the district court to take new evidence and could again limit federal actions through a preliminary injunction. If such a limit is imposed, further appeals are likely—potentially returning the dispute to the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court.
Practical effects and immediate implications
For communities and law enforcement, the stay has several immediate, tangible consequences:
- Expanded field operations: ICE and DHS can conduct sweeps and “roving patrols” across Los Angeles and nearby counties.
- Use of combined factors: Agents may, for now, consider race, language, location, and occupation together to justify stops.
- Legal uncertainty: The framework could change again after the September 24, 2025 district court hearing.
From a law enforcement perspective, the ruling restores tools many agents consider vital. It also increases pressure on supervisors to ensure stops are properly documented and defensible if courts later reinstate restrictions.
From a civil liberties viewpoint, the stay heightens the risk that people will be questioned on thin grounds and that fear will spread in immigrant-heavy neighborhoods even before any arrests occur.
According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the Supreme Court’s move underscores the long-running tension between federal immigration authority and local concerns about racial profiling. The site notes that stops based on a “totality of circumstances” are a common law enforcement standard, but when appearance or language carry heavy weight, communities may feel targeted regardless of legal outcomes.
Community reactions and political responses
The decision prompted sharply divided responses:
- The Trump Administration hailed the stay as a win for public safety. Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said, “DHS law enforcement will not be slowed down and will continue to arrest and remove the murderers, rapists, gang members, and other criminal illegal aliens that Karen Bass continues to give safe harbor.”
- California officials reacted strongly. Governor Gavin Newsom condemned the decision as “a parade of racial terror in Los Angeles” and vowed continued resistance through state policy and legal action.
- Civil rights groups sounded the alarm. The ACLU of Southern California and Public Counsel said the ruling allows “racially discriminatory raids” and promised to press the case in court. They warned the immediate effect will be felt by undocumented immigrants and by U.S. citizens and lawful residents who may be questioned or detained based on appearance or the language they speak.
Community groups report immediate behaviors changing across the region:
- Parents altering commutes
- Workers avoiding day labor corners
- Lawful residents carrying extra documents to prove identity and status
Plaintiffs fear stops could sweep up citizens who speak Spanish or another non-English language, or people heading to jobs associated with past enforcement targets.
The Supreme Court’s stay may feel immediate and personal to many residents — not just an abstract legal ruling.
Rights, advice, and ongoing documentation
The Supreme Court’s order does not change baseline rights. People still generally have the right to:
- Remain silent in many encounters
- Ask if they are free to leave
- Request a lawyer if taken into custody
Community groups advise carrying any available government-issued ID and, if applicable, proof of status. While no single document guarantees release, clear identification can reduce confusion during brief stops.
State and local officials plan to respond as follows:
- The Governor’s office will track reports of racial profiling and coordinate with legal aid groups.
- Advocacy organizations plan to document stops in real time to build a record for the district court.
- Federal officials say they will continue operations focused on people with prior criminal records while defending broader discretion to stop and question individuals based on combined factors.
As of September 9, 2025, no official statistics on post-ruling stops or arrests have been released. The stay covers Los Angeles and surrounding counties, potentially affecting millions of residents. For many, the court’s action is felt on sidewalks, at bus stops, and at workplaces.
Key upcoming dates and potential next steps
- September 24, 2025 — District court hearing on a potential preliminary injunction (new evidence may be taken).
- If the district court issues a fresh injunction, either party could appeal, returning the issue to higher courts.
- Until further court action, the SCOTUS stay remains in effect and federal operations are expected to ramp up locally.
Sources and where to follow updates
- Supreme Court decisions and filings: www.supremecourt.gov
- DHS policy statements: www.dhs.gov
- Governor’s office responses: www.gov.ca.gov
- Community legal guidance: ACLU of Southern California — ACLU of Southern California
Warning: The legal landscape may change rapidly. The district court’s actions on September 24, 2025, could significantly alter how enforcement operations are carried out in the short term.
This Article in a Nutshell
On September 8, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, stayed a lower-court injunction that had limited federal immigration enforcement in Los Angeles County. The stay permits DHS and ICE to resume broad operations, including roving patrols and sweeps at locations such as day labor sites, car washes, farms and bus stops. The lower court had found substantial evidence suggesting stops based on race, language and occupation, raising Fourth Amendment concerns; the Ninth Circuit had kept that injunction in place until the Supreme Court intervened. The stay is temporary; the case returns to district court for a hearing on a possible preliminary injunction on September 24, 2025, and further appeals are likely. Immediate consequences include expanded field operations, continued legal uncertainty, intensified documentation requirements for stops, and heightened community fears of racial profiling. Civil rights groups and state officials pledged continued legal challenges and documentation, while federal authorities defended their discretion to use combined factors to form reasonable suspicion.
