In a move that has ignited fierce debate across the country, the U.S. Supreme Court has handed down a ruling that allows federal immigration officers to use race, ethnicity, accent, location, and occupation as grounds for detaining individuals suspected of immigration violations. The decision, issued in the high-profile case of Noem v. Perdomo (also referred to as Vásquez Perdomo v. Noem), has drawn swift condemnation from civil rights groups, legal experts, and public defenders, particularly in California, where the ruling's immediate impact is being felt.
On September 8, 2025, the Supreme Court, in a 6–3 vote, granted an emergency request from the Trump administration to lift restrictions that had previously prevented immigration raids in the Los Angeles area based on racial profiling. As reported by multiple sources including the Davis Vanguard and Reason, this emergency order suspended a Los Angeles judge's ruling that had barred 'roving patrols' from arresting people based on their appearance, language, job, or location. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had upheld the lower court's decision, finding that such actions likely constituted unlawful racial discrimination and violated the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
However, with the Supreme Court's intervention, immigration agents are now permitted to proceed with these controversial tactics while the underlying lawsuit continues in court. The order itself was unsigned and issued on the so-called "shadow docket," meaning it came without the benefit of full briefing, oral arguments, or even an accompanying opinion explaining the Court's reasoning. This lack of transparency has only fueled outrage among advocates and legal scholars.
The California Public Defenders Association (CPDA) responded with a strongly worded statement on September 11, denouncing the ruling as a "devastating setback for constitutional protections." According to the Davis Vanguard, the CPDA warned, "The Supreme Court ruling in Noem v. Perdomo represents a devastating setback for constitutional protections. By allowing asserted federal agents to engage in violent detentions and interrogations based on appearance, language, and working at a low-wage job, the Court has opened the door wide to racial profiling and discriminatory policing under the guise of immigration enforcement."
The CPDA further cautioned that the decision "is a death knell to the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures—not just for immigrants, but for all people in this country. If government agents are permitted to stop individuals based on race, accent, or neighborhood, then no one is safe from arbitrary detention. Such practices transform entire communities into constitutional-free zones."
National civil rights organizations echoed these concerns. William Roberts, Vice President of Rights and Justice at the Center for American Progress, called the ruling "an openly racist attack," stating, "The highest court in the country just effectively shoved aside decades of precedent barring racial profiling as a constitutional violation. This opens the door to roving groups of masked, armed, and unidentified federal agents carrying out raids based not on reasonable suspicion, as the law requires, but racial stereotypes, including how a person looks, where they work, and the language they speak."
Similarly, the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) issued a statement emphasizing the real-world risks for Latino communities: "The Constitution does not allow Americans to be stopped simply for speaking Spanish, waiting for work, or looking Latino. Reasonable suspicion must be based on evidence, not ethnicity. By siding with the administration, the Court has opened the door to profiling practices that will expose millions of Latinos to harassment, wrongful detention, and fear in their daily lives. Whether at bus stops, workplaces, or public spaces, Latino communities will face the risk of being treated as suspects simply because of who they are or what they look like."
Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), summed up the stakes bluntly: "Today's Supreme Court order puts people at grave risk, allowing federal agents in Southern California to target individuals because of their race, how they speak, the jobs they work, or just being at a bus stop or the car wash when ICE agents decide to raid a place. For anyone perceived as Latino by an ICE agent, this means living in a fearful ‘papers please’ regime, with risks of violent ICE arrests and detention." Wang also criticized the order for lacking any substantive reasoning, saying, "The Supreme Court's order is outrageous because it includes no reasoning itself but puts on hold the well-reasoned opinions of the lower federal courts. We will fight on in this case and others for our fundamental right to go about our lives without being targeted by government agents based on racial profiling."
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, one of the justices in the majority, offered a brief concurrence defending the decision. He described it as "common sense" to allow immigration agents to seize people based on "relevant factors" such as their apparent ethnicity and gathering in certain locations to seek daily work. Kavanaugh dismissed concerns that U.S. citizens might be wrongfully detained, arguing that questioning is typically brief and that individuals can promptly go free after establishing their legal status. Yet, as reported by Reason, the facts of the case undermine this assurance. One U.S. citizen, Jason Brian Gavidia, was forcefully detained by immigration agents in Los Angeles, who ignored his repeated statements that he was an American and subjected him to aggressive questioning and physical restraint. His experience, detailed by the Ninth Circuit, starkly contradicts Kavanaugh's "prompt" release narrative.
Critics also pointed to the broader context of the Supreme Court's jurisprudence on race. An opinion piece published on September 11 highlighted Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent, which accused the Court's majority of inconsistent treatment of race in the law. The piece referenced the Court's 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which ended race-conscious admissions in higher education, arguing that the Court claims colorblindness in some contexts while permitting explicit consideration of race in others, such as immigration enforcement. "The Supreme Court insists the Constitution is colorblind. But its ruling in a case about ICE roundups proves the opposite: it sees color very clearly," the opinion observed.
As the legal battle continues, the CPDA has called on lawmakers at all levels to take urgent action. Their statement concluded, "The California Public Defenders Association stands firmly against this assault on the Constitution and this assault on the residents of California. We call on lawmakers at every level of government—state and federal—to enact laws and policies that prohibit racial profiling and defend the principle that every person—regardless of race, language, or status—is entitled to equal protection under the law."
For now, the Supreme Court's ruling has upended longstanding legal protections against racial profiling, leaving millions in Southern California and beyond facing deep uncertainty about their rights and safety. As the underlying lawsuit proceeds, the ruling stands as a stark reminder of the ongoing struggle over the meaning of equal protection and constitutional liberty in America.
