(LOS ANGELES) The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed federal immigration agents to rely on race, ethnicity, language, location, and occupation when stopping and detaining people in the Los Angeles region, after issuing a stay on September 8 in Noem v. Perdomo. The emergency order suspends a lower court’s ban on such stops and will remain in place while appeals continue.
The ruling immediately affects an area of about 20 million residents and has drawn sharp criticism from public defenders, civil rights lawyers, and immigrant advocates who warn the decision opens the door to racial profiling and arbitrary arrests.
Reactions from civil-rights and advocacy groups
The California Public Defenders Association (CPDA) called the ruling a “devastating setback for constitutional protections,” saying it encourages discriminatory policing under the cover of immigration enforcement. CPDA urged lawmakers to pass clear laws banning racial profiling and to protect equal treatment regardless of race, language, or status.
According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the stay signals a broader shift that could shape how federal agents conduct workplace and neighborhood operations, especially in immigrant-heavy counties.
Other groups and leaders strongly condemned the order:
- Immigrants Rising said the decision “criminalizes” people based on skin color, language, and occupation, warning it will spread fear among marginalized communities.
- The ACLU of Southern California, Public Counsel, CHIRLA, and Immigrant Defenders Law Center pledged to keep fighting in court and in the community.
- The Legal Defense Fund (LDF) labeled the decision “perilous,” saying it threatens to normalize racial profiling and undercuts the Equal Protection Clause.
- In Pennsylvania, Legislative Latino Caucus Chair Rep. Johanny Cepeda-Freytiz called the ruling “racist, dangerous, and un-American,” pointing to the risk for anyone who “looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low-wage job.”
The Supreme Court majority emphasized deference to the Executive Branch on immigration enforcement. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, calling the move a “grave misuse” of emergency powers that risks the freedoms of everyone, not only noncitizens.
While the stay does not decide the merits of the case, it permits continued use of factors like appearance or language during stops — even when these alone might not show reasonable suspicion of a specific violation.
Immediate effects in Los Angeles
Local defenders and community groups expect stepped-up stops and workplace actions in and around Los Angeles County.
Critics argue the ruling weakens Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures by allowing agents to base stops on race and language cues. They fear this will:
- Deter crime reporting
- Push families deeper into the shadows
- Make victims and witnesses less likely to seek help
CPDA framed the order as a “death knell” for core protections unless lawmakers and courts step in to draw clear limits.
Who may be affected:
- U.S. citizens who are Latino, speak Spanish, or work in jobs often targeted in raids (food service, agriculture, construction) may face more stops and questioning.
- Attorneys warn of wrongful detentions, family separation, and job loss, especially if identity checks drag on or employers fire workers under pressure.
- Community groups report spikes in hotline calls after similar enforcement pushes, with parents asking whether it is safe to drive, take children to school, or show up to work.
Key numbers:
| Item | Figure |
|---|---|
| Population affected in region | ~20 million |
| Immigrants in California | ~10.6 million |
| Undocumented in California | ~1.8 million |
| Undocumented residents in state >10 years | ~2/3 |
Widespread stops based on appearance or language could affect transit hubs, shopping centers, workplaces, and many other parts of daily life.
Legal path ahead
A district court hearing is scheduled for September 24, 2025, when a judge will consider a new request for a preliminary injunction based on additional evidence of discriminatory enforcement.
Lawyers plan to present:
- Records of stops
- Declarations from residents
- Data analysis showing patterns they say target people by race and language rather than specific facts
The Supreme Court’s order remains temporary; the case could return to the justices after lower courts make fuller findings.
Broader legal and policy questions:
- The stay directly covers Los Angeles and nearby counties, but advocates worry other regions could mirror the approach, citing the Supreme Court order as support.
- State and local officials may respond by limiting cooperation with civil immigration actions or by boosting anti-profiling rules.
- CPDA has urged swift legislation at city, county, and state levels to set clear, enforceable bans on racial profiling in immigration enforcement.
Practical guidance and community response
Rights groups are urging residents — regardless of status — to prepare and protect their rights:
- Carry some form of identification.
- Know the right to remain silent.
- Ask if you are free to leave.
- If approached, ask whether the agent has a warrant and decline consent to a search if no warrant is presented.
- Create family safety plans (childcare contacts, copies of key records).
- Report incidents of racial profiling to local hotlines and document details: time, place, and what was said.
Community impacts and responses:
- Workplace raids can leave children stranded, debts unpaid, and small businesses short-staffed.
- Health providers report missed medical appointments when people fear traveling.
- Teachers see attendance drops after high-profile sweeps.
- Faith leaders and labor groups are preparing rapid-response teams to help families find legal help, recover pay, and remain housed.
Where to read the order and related materials
For residents seeking legal guidance or to view the filings, the Supreme Court docket for Noem v. Perdomo and related documents are available online:
- Opinion and related filings: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/25a169_5h25.pdf
- ACLU of Southern California summary: https://www.aclusocal.org/en/press-releases/us-supreme-court-grants-stay-la-raids-case
- CPDA statement (posted by Davis Vanguard): https://davisvanguard.org/2025/09/noem-v-perdomo-cpda-statement/
- LDF response: https://www.naacpldf.org/press-release/ldf-condemns-supreme-court-decision-permitting-continuation-of-racial-profiling-in-immigration-enforcement/
- Immigrants Rising alert: https://immigrantsrising.org/immigrants-rising-denounces-sept-8-us-supreme-court-decision/
- Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota analysis: https://www.ilcm.org/latest-news/supreme-court-opens-door-for-racial-profiling/
Important takeaway: The Supreme Court’s stay restores federal agents’ ability to use appearance, language, and occupation as factors in stops for now. The order is temporary, and the September 24, 2025 hearing could change enforcement rules depending on the evidence presented.
The next few weeks will be pivotal as judges weigh new evidence and advocates press for legal and legislative remedies. For now, Los Angeles is the test case in a national debate over the future of racial profiling in immigration enforcement, with CPDA and many rights groups warning of lasting harms if the practice continues.
This Article in a Nutshell
The Supreme Court on September 8 issued an emergency stay in Noem v. Perdomo allowing federal immigration agents to use race, ethnicity, language, location and occupation as factors when stopping and detaining people in the Los Angeles region. The order suspends a lower court’s ban and immediately affects roughly 20 million residents. Civil-rights groups—including the California Public Defenders Association, ACLU of Southern California, Immigrants Rising and the Legal Defense Fund—condemned the decision as enabling racial profiling and undermining Fourth Amendment protections. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented. A district court hearing on September 24, 2025 will consider a new request for a preliminary injunction based on additional evidence; the Supreme Court’s stay remains temporary while appeals continue. Community groups advise carrying ID, knowing legal rights, documenting incidents and seeking legal assistance.
