The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to allow immigration enforcement agents in Southern California to continue detaining individuals based in part on factors such as speaking Spanish, working certain jobs, or being present in specific locations.
The request follows lower court rulings that found the practice likely violates the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong last month barred Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from making stops primarily based on race, ethnicity, language, occupation, or presence in certain locations.
To back her claims she cited a "mountain of evidence" showing that agents were conducting indiscriminate stops, including on U.S. citizens, without reasonable suspicion. The court found that the agency had targeted Latino individuals, including people encountered at farms, bus stops, and day laborer sites.
-
California Governor Gavin Newsom & Political Figures Blast Trump's National Guard Plan in Washington D.C.: 'This is What Dictators Do'
-
Truck Company Denies Authorizing Vehicle for Border Patrol's 'Trojan Horse' Raid in Los Angeles
-
Gavin Newsom Urges Trump And Republicans To Drop Redistricting Push: 'Risking The Destabilization Of Our Democracy'
In its emergency appeal, the Justice Department argued that the restrictions interfere with immigration enforcement operations. "Now, ICE agents, under threat of contempt, cannot detain anyone in the District solely based on those factors — not even after encountering someone who speaks only Spanish and works as a day laborer at a worksite that has been cited 30 times for hiring illegal aliens," government lawyers wrote.
The administration acknowledged that "no one thinks that speaking Spanish or working in construction always creates reasonable suspicion," but maintained that "in many situations, such factors — alone or in combination — can heighten the likelihood that someone is unlawfully present." It argued agents should be able to rely on these indicators when enforcing immigration laws.
The administration also claimed that lower courts overstepped by issuing orders that broadly restrict enforcement activity, referencing a recent Supreme Court decision limiting such injunctions. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, finding the geographic scope narrow and the impact on non-plaintiffs incidental.
The Supreme Court is expected to consider the administration's emergency request in the coming weeks.
© 2025 Latin Times. All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without permission.
