By It turns out that he’s the president and gets to enforce laws after all. The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, has granted the Trump administration authority to resume aggressive immigration patrols across Southern California, reversing lower-court orders that had temporarily barred the practice. The ruling, issued without a full opinion, lifts a restraining order that had blocked Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents from conducting so-called “roving patrols” in seven counties surrounding Los Angeles, according to CNN.
The case arose after reports that heavily armed ICE teams targeted individuals for immigration checks based on language, appearance, or presence in places such as farms, transit hubs, and day-labor sites. In July, District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong ruled the tactics likely violated the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches. The Ninth Circuit largely upheld her order, setting the stage for an emergency appeal to the high court.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing separately, defended the administration’s authority to question individuals under “reasonable suspicion,” pointing to factors such as employment in high-immigrant industries or limited English proficiency. He stressed that ethnicity alone was not enough, but could be one factor in a broader assessment. At the same time, Kavanaugh acknowledged the humanitarian dimension, noting that many undocumented migrants come seeking better lives but remain unlawfully present unless Congress changes the law.
The liberal justices dissented sharply. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a forceful 20-page opinion, warned the decision risks turning appearance and language into grounds for detention. “We should not have to live in a country where the government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low-wage job,” she wrote. She condemned reports of mass detentions and firearms brandished by ICE, and accused the administration of openly defying judicial oversight — citing Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s vow to ignore the district court’s ruling.
Per usual, Sotomayor was making a political argument rather than one about the law. The 6-3 ruling does not allow indiscriminate stops. The legal standard for a stop is a “reasonable suspicion,” based on the “totality of the particular circumstances.” Individuals also may not be detained based solely on ethnicity.
Commentators noted that it was another example of a Biden “resistance” judge getting their rulings overturned by judges who actually believe in the law.
Generally, that is what happens when the executive has the law on its side and district courts are ignoring it.
One may not like the las, but contending with reality is helpful. https://t.co/3HWBHLL7Cs
— Legal Phil (@Legal_Fil) September 8, 2025
The ruling comes amid President Trump’s broader pledge to escalate immigration enforcement, with a stated goal of 3,000 arrests per day nationwide. Advocacy groups argue the patrols have already swept up lawful residents and citizens, and new lawsuits are expected. For now, however, ICE has the green light to resume operations as the underlying case proceeds.
The order, issued through the Court’s “shadow docket,” adds to a growing controversy over the justices’ reliance on emergency rulings without full briefing or oral argument. Critics warn the practice allows sweeping policy shifts without the transparency of normal appellate review. With Monday’s decision, the constitutional battle over immigration policing is set to intensify—in the courts, in Congress, and on the streets of Southern California.
[Read More: Two Big Ten Schools Move In Opposite Directions]
