On September 8, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision that has sent shockwaves through Los Angeles and far beyond. In a 6-3 ruling, the Court lifted a federal judge’s order that had temporarily halted aggressive immigration enforcement tactics in Southern California, allowing federal agents to resume so-called "roving patrols" and sweeps. These patrols, which critics argue amount to blatant racial profiling, had previously been banned after a summer of high-profile raids and mounting public outcry.
The decision, which came via the Court’s emergency or "shadow" docket, overturned a July restraining order that barred Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Border Patrol agents from stopping, detaining, or interrogating individuals based solely on factors like appearance, language, and location. The order had been in effect while a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of these practices made its way through the courts, with a key hearing scheduled for September 24, 2025.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing in concurrence, offered a window into the majority’s thinking. He explained that while "apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion," it can be considered a "relevant factor" when combined with other circumstances. Kavanaugh listed examples such as the high number of undocumented immigrants in Los Angeles, their tendency to gather in particular locations for day labor, and the types of jobs often sought by undocumented workers. "To be clear," Kavanaugh wrote, "ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion; under this Court’s case law regarding immigration stops, however, it can be a ‘relevant factor’ when considered with other salient factors."
Not everyone on the bench agreed. The three justices appointed by Democratic presidents—Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—dissented sharply, objecting both to the substance of the ruling and the manner in which it was delivered. Justice Sotomayor’s dissent was particularly forceful: "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 Department of Homeland Security wasted little time responding to the ruling, declaring on X (formerly Twitter), "DHS law enforcement will continue to FLOOD THE ZONE in Los Angeles." The agency framed the decision as a victory for public safety and the rule of law, vowing to continue removing what it termed "criminal" undocumented immigrants. Tricia McLaughlin, a spokeswoman for Homeland Security, stated, "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."
For many Angelenos, however, the ruling has reignited deep fears. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass condemned the decision, calling it "dangerous" and "an attack on every person in every city in this country." In a statement, she warned, "Today, the highest court in the country ruled that the White House and masked federal agents can racially profile Angelenos with no due process, snatch them off the street with no evidence or warrant, and take them away with no explanation." Governor Gavin Newsom echoed these concerns, denouncing the Supreme Court majority as the "Grand Marshal for a parade of racial terror in Los Angeles" and vowing that the state would "continue fighting these abhorrent attacks on Californians."
The impact of the ruling is already being felt on the ground. Even while the restraining order was in place, agents continued to conduct raids—sometimes with force. On August 28, for example, about 40 federal agents stormed a Westlake Home Depot, deploying tear gas and pepper pellets to disperse a crowd before detaining eight people. That same location had previously been featured in a Border Patrol video where agents hid in a rental truck before bursting out to detain day laborers in a raid dubbed Operation Trojan Horse. Under the leadership of Operation-At-Large Chief Gregory Bovino, such tactics have become common across Los Angeles, with plans to expand them to other cities nationwide.
The numbers are staggering: Since the start of these enforcement blitzes, thousands have been arrested, and entire communities have been thrown into turmoil. According to the Los Angeles Times, 81 car washes have been raided and nearly 250 workers taken from those businesses alone. Business owners in Latino neighborhoods report sharp declines in customers, while families have been split apart, with some children even detained alone. The majority of those arrested, an analysis from The Times found, had no criminal convictions.
For those targeted by the raids, the psychological toll is immense. Pepe Morales, a father of four and a day laborer who frequents the Westlake Home Depot, described the impact on his family: "Personally, this is persecuting me and my family. My kids realize everything going on. I’m worried how that’ll affect them psychologically. They’re not respecting kids or anyone. A lot of people are worried. The whole community." Another worker, Angel Pineda, noted that the number of day laborers seeking work had plummeted from hundreds to just a handful since the raids began.
Immigrant rights advocates and local officials have mobilized in response. Elizabeth Strater, national vice president of United Farm Workers, stressed the need for employers to protect their workers’ rights, saying, "Every employer needs to take responsibility for protecting their worker’s rights. Put a gate there if you need to, have a door that locks, have a protocol in place. If they don’t have a warrant they can’t come on site and terrorize." Flor Melendrez, executive director of the Clean Carwash Worker Center, warned, "The raids are getting more violent, workers are getting hurt, workers are dying. Let this be your call to action, to stand with our community, to stand with workers."
From a legal perspective, the case has exposed deep divisions over the limits of executive power and the protection of civil liberties. The district court that issued the original restraining order did so after finding a "mountain of evidence" that agents were stopping people based solely on race, language, or the type of work they did—factors the court said did not meet constitutional standards for reasonable suspicion. The Supreme Court’s reversal, delivered without full briefing or oral argument, marks the seventeenth consecutive time this year that the justices have sided with the Trump administration on immigration matters.
Supporters of the enforcement actions, including some within the Border Patrol, argue that they are simply upholding the law. Paul Perez, president of the National Border Patrol Council, stated, "Over half of our agents are Hispanic, there is nothing racist about a Hispanic officer arresting anybody from another country whether it be Central America or South America, whether it be an African or European country, we’re gonna do the job the way that Congress has allowed us to do the job." But for many in Los Angeles County, where nearly half the population is Latino and one in three residents is an immigrant, the ruling feels like a personal affront and a setback for civil rights.
Kevin R. Johnson, director of the Aoki Center on Critical Race and Nation Studies at UC Davis School of Law, warned that "race-based immigration enforcement undermines Latina/o sense of belonging in the national community for generations." The ongoing legal battle will likely continue to define the boundaries of immigration enforcement and civil liberties for years to come.
As the city braces for a new wave of raids and the lawsuit continues its journey through the courts, Los Angeles remains a flashpoint in the national debate over immigration, race, and the rule of law.
