The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the Trump administration today, blocking an order by a federal circuit court judge that had limited federal agents from making 'indiscriminate' immigration-related stops in Los Angeles and other areas in central California.
NEW: The Supreme Court has granted the Trump administration's request to block a ruling by a federal judge in Los Angeles that barred federal agents from conducting immigration stops in L.A. and central California without reasonable suspicionhttps://t.co/LApcyp3zFd
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) September 8, 2025
Here is more from the New York Times:
The Supreme Court on Monday lifted a federal judge’s order prohibiting government agents from making indiscriminate immigration-related stops in the Los Angeles area that challengers called “blatant racial profiling.”
The court’s brief order was unsigned and gave no reasons. It is not the last word in the case, which is pending before a federal appeals court and may again reach the justices.
The court’s three liberal members dissented.
In the near term it allows what critics say are roving patrols of masked agents routinely violating the Fourth Amendment and what supporters say is a vigorous but lawful effort to enforce the nation’s immigration laws.
The lower courts had placed significant restrictions on President Trump’s efforts to ramp up immigrant arrests to achieve his pledge of mass deportations. Aggressive enforcement operations in Los Angeles — including encounters captured on video that appeared to be roundups of random Hispanic people by armed agents — have become a flashpoint, setting off protests and clashes in the area.
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and Governor Gavin Newsom have been vocal opponents of ICE raids, with Newsom saying the state would 'punch back' against ICE enforcement. Mayor Bass said the raids were 'creating a sense of fear and terror,' claiming they are the cause of chaos in her city and a blow to its economy.
Writing for the majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the facts of the case favored the government, writing:
In any event, the balance of harms and equities in this case tips in favor of the Government. The interests of individuals who are illegally in the country in avoiding being stopped by law enforcement for questioning is ultimately an interest in evading the law. That is not an especially weighty legal interest.
To be sure, I recognize and fully appreciate that many(not all, but many) illegal immigrants come to the United States to escape poverty and the lack of freedom and opportunities in their home countries, and to make better lives for themselves and their families. And I understand that they may feel somewhat misled by the varying U. approaches to immigration enforcement over the last few decades. But the fact remains that, under the laws passed by Congress and the President, they are acting illegally by remaining in the United States—at least unless Congress and the President choose some other legislative approach to legalize some or all of those individuals now illegally present in the country. And by illegally immigrating into and remaining in the country, they are not only violating the immigration laws, but also jumping in front of those noncitizens who follow the rules and wait in line to immigrate into the United States through the legal immigration process.
Writing the dissent, Justice Sotomayor called the court's ruling 'troubling:'
The equities therefore lie with the plaintiffs. Countless people in the Los Angeles area have been grabbed, thrown to the ground, and handcuffed simply because of their looks, their accents, and the fact they make a living by doing manual labor. Today, the Court needlessly subjects countless more to these exact same indignities.
The Court’s order is troubling for another reason: It is entirely unexplained. In the last eight months, this Court’s appetite to circumvent the ordinary appellate process and weigh in on important issues has grown exponentially. See,e.g., Trump v. J. G. G., 604 U. S. ___ (2025) (per curiam);Trump v. Wilcox, 605 U. S. ___ (2025); Noem v. Doe, 605U. S. ___ (2025); United States v. Shilling, 605 U. S. ___(2025). Its interest in explaining itself, unfortunately, has not. See Trump v. Boyle, 606 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2025)(KAGAN, J., dissenting from grant of application for stay)(slip op., at 2–3).
The ruling now clears the way for federal agents to continue sweeping immigration operations in the state of California. As of the time of this writing, neither Karen Bass nor Gavin Newsom had issued statements.