On September 9, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision that has sent shockwaves through communities across the nation, particularly among Latinos and immigrant advocates in Southern California. In Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem, the Court ruled 6-3 to allow federal immigration agents—including those from Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)—to resume so-called “roving patrol” tactics. These tactics, which had been previously barred by a lower court, permit agents to use skin color, language, and even workplace as “reasonable suspicion” to detain individuals they suspect of being in the country illegally, as reported by WCIV and Capital & Main.
The ruling, which sided with the Trump administration, has been described by critics as a “green light to profile Latinos.” According to Capital & Main, the decision allows agents to question and detain people who are brown, Spanish-speaking, or employed in industries such as car washes and construction—jobs often filled by immigrants from Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, and other parts of Latin America. This move, critics argue, marks a significant step backward for civil rights in the United States and has reignited debates about the nation’s history of racial profiling and systemic discrimination.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, attempted to clarify the Court’s position, stating, “To be clear, apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion; under this Court’s case law regarding immigration stops, however, it can be a 'relevant factor' when considered along with other salient factors.” Kavanaugh’s opinion, while brief, cited a 1983 incident of racial profiling of a Black man in Los Angeles as part of his rationale, a move that has drawn criticism for ignoring the broader implications of such practices on constitutional protections for both Latino citizens and noncitizens.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a forceful dissent, warned of the erosion of fundamental rights. “The Fourth Amendment protects every individual’s constitutional right to be 'free from arbitrary interference by law officers.' After today, that may no longer be true for those who happen to look a certain way, speak a certain way, and appear to work a certain type of legitimate job that pays very little. Because this is unconscionably irreconcilable with our Nation’s constitutional guarantees, I dissent,” she wrote, as quoted by WCIV.
The ruling has not only sparked legal and ethical debates but has also galvanized grassroots activism. On September 21, 2025, the Charleston Community Service Organization (CSO), a local chapter of the National Immigrants Rights Movement, announced a picket scheduled for Monday, September 22, outside Elbit Systems’ facility in Ladson, South Carolina. The protest is intended as a show of solidarity with other progressive groups, including the “Elbit Out of SC Coalition,” which has been protesting the company’s alleged involvement in the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Palestine, as reported by WCIV. The CSO’s choice of location underscores the interconnectedness of struggles against racial profiling, militarization, and international human rights concerns.
Elbit America, for its part, has sought to emphasize its positive economic impact on the Charleston Tri-County Area. In a statement provided to WCIV, the company said, “Our Charleston operation establishes Elbit America as a significant contributor to the Charleston Tri-County Area, generating a projected economic impact of $380 million that directly benefits local businesses, families, and public services. Since 2023, Elbit America has invested over $14.5 million with South Carolina-based businesses, strengthening the local economy and helping create opportunities for thousands of residents. Our facility employs 110 full-time members and partners with more than 50 local suppliers. Our facility will continue hiring more local talent in the coming months and years.”
Yet, for many activists and community members, such economic contributions cannot outweigh the broader societal costs associated with policies and practices they view as discriminatory. The picket outside Elbit’s facility is one of several recent demonstrations, including vigils honoring Palestinians killed since October 2023, that highlight the intersectionality of local and global justice movements.
The Supreme Court’s decision has been described by some commentators as a continuation of a long and troubling tradition of institutionalized racial profiling in the United States. As Erin Aubry Kaplan wrote in Capital & Main, “Racial profiling has always been with us and justified–necessitated even–by a culture of antiblackness that was embedded in American culture since before the nation’s founding and remained embedded in law for a hundred years after slavery. ‘Racial profiling’ is just a name for the live embers of that history that were never extinguished.” Kaplan draws direct comparisons to infamous Supreme Court rulings such as Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson, which sanctioned segregation and exclusion, arguing that the present ruling threatens to become a similarly notorious stain on the nation’s legal and moral fabric.
The expedited nature of the Court’s decision—made via the so-called “shadow docket” without extensive public debate or fully reasoned opinions—has raised additional concerns about transparency and accountability. Critics argue that the ruling reflects a broader trend by the Roberts Court to weaken or overturn civil rights protections established in the 1960s, including the Voting Rights Act. “What is truly momentous about the high court’s decision is that the fig leaf of that argument is gone, and the overt racism of the past is, in the era of Trump, back in full judicial view,” wrote Kaplan.
In Southern California, where diversity is not just a fact of life but a core strength, the decision has been met with particular alarm. The region’s dense and varied economy has long attracted people from across the globe, and many see the ruling as a direct threat to the ideals of prosperity, inclusion, and equity that have defined the area. As Kaplan notes, “Diversity is not just a fact of life here, it’s a core strength. It’s what we do and who we are. Not just what we look like.”
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem has undoubtedly intensified national debates about race, immigration, and the very meaning of constitutional protections. While supporters argue that the decision simply restores law enforcement tools needed to address illegal immigration, opponents see it as a dangerous rollback of civil liberties that disproportionately targets vulnerable communities. As protests and public outcry continue, the country finds itself at a crossroads, grappling once again with the enduring questions of who belongs—and who decides.
