On September 8, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a decision that is already rippling through communities and legal circles nationwide: federal immigration agents may now use race as grounds for stopping individuals for immigration enforcement. This controversial ruling, delivered through the Court’s so-called "shadow docket," has reignited fierce debate about constitutional rights, racial profiling, and the future of immigration enforcement in America.
According to reporting from USA TODAY, the Supreme Court’s unsigned order blocked a previous ruling by U.S. District Judge Maame Frimpong, which had barred federal agents from relying solely on ethnicity, language, or location as grounds for questioning someone’s immigration status. Judge Frimpong’s temporary order was prompted by a class action lawsuit from a group of Latinos—some of them U.S. citizens—who had been swept up in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids in Southern California. The majority of the Supreme Court did not provide a detailed legal rationale for their decision, but Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote separately to clarify his view: while ethnicity alone cannot be the sole basis for reasonable suspicion, it can be considered alongside other factors. He added that if officers determine the person stopped is a U.S. citizen or lawfully present, "they promptly let the individual go."
This ruling, which NBC News described as bringing the country "dangerously close" to "real tyranny," has serious implications for civil rights and the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Law professor Melissa Murray, speaking on NBC News, warned that the decision "shreds the Fourth Amendment" and undermines decades of legal precedent designed to protect individuals from arbitrary government intrusion. "We are dangerously close to real tyranny," Murray stated, capturing the alarm felt by many civil rights advocates.
For many immigrants and U.S. citizens alike, the ruling signals a new era of intensified ICE enforcement and heightened anxiety. As USA TODAY notes, the federal Immigration and Nationality Act has, since the 1950s, required lawful immigrants and foreign visitors aged 18 and older to carry their immigration documents at all times. While this "carry your papers" law has long existed, it was rarely enforced—until the Trump administration’s recent crackdown. Now, failure to comply can result in a $100 fine or up to 30 days in jail.
Yet the new Supreme Court decision goes further, effectively allowing ICE agents to stop people in places like Los Angeles simply for speaking Spanish or appearing Latino. This has led to mounting concerns among Latino and Central American communities—many of whom are U.S. citizens—that they could be wrongly targeted based on their appearance or language. Fernando Garcia, executive director of the Border Network for Human Rights in El Paso, Texas, shared his worries with USA TODAY: "With massive raids and mass deportation, this takes a new dimension. How rapidly are we transitioning into a 'show me your papers' state? The problem is there are a lot of people—Mexicans, or Central Americans—who are U.S. citizens who don’t have to carry anything, but they have the burden of proof based on racial profiling. There are examples of U.S. citizens being arrested already, based on their appearance and their race."
The ruling has also sown confusion over what documents actually prove citizenship. Since May 2025, travelers on U.S. domestic flights have been required to present a Real ID-compliant license at airport security. Thousands of Michigan residents, for instance, have upgraded to the newer, more secure Real ID. However, as the Michigan Secretary of State’s Office clarified, a Real ID license does not prove citizenship—non-citizens can obtain one as long as they have the proper documentation, such as a permanent resident card or foreign passport. U.S. citizens, by contrast, are not required to carry proof of citizenship in their daily lives, which means they could be at risk of being stopped and questioned based solely on racial profiling.
For those who don’t have a Real ID or another approved form of identification, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) may ask travelers to complete an identity verification process, which includes providing their name and current address. If the identity is confirmed, they are allowed to proceed to the security checkpoint, although they may be subject to additional screening. Passports remain the gold standard for proof of citizenship, and can always be used for both domestic and international travel. However, routine passport applications can take four to six weeks to process, and even expedited requests require at least two weeks—leaving some travelers in a bind if they need proof of citizenship on short notice.
Immigration advocates and legal experts are sounding the alarm about the broader implications of the Supreme Court’s decision. While the Court’s majority opinion was brief, the dissent from the three liberal justices was pointed: they argued that the ruling opens the door to widespread racial profiling and erodes the fundamental protections of the Fourth Amendment. As NBC News reported, the decision is already being interpreted as a green light for ICE and other federal agents to use race as a primary factor in immigration stops—something that civil rights groups have long opposed.
For many observers, the ruling also raises uncomfortable questions about the direction of American democracy. The use of the Supreme Court’s shadow docket—a process that allows the Court to issue significant decisions without full briefing or oral argument—has come under increasing scrutiny. Critics argue that it allows the Court to make sweeping changes to the law with little transparency or accountability. In this case, the impact is immediate and deeply felt, particularly in communities that have long been subject to suspicion and discrimination.
On the ground, the ruling has intensified the atmosphere of fear and uncertainty among immigrants and U.S. citizens alike. Community organizations are urging people to know their rights and to carry appropriate documentation, even if they are not legally required to do so. As the debate over immigration enforcement continues, many are left wondering how far the government will go—and how much the courts will allow—in the name of national security.
The Supreme Court’s decision has set a new precedent for immigration enforcement, one that is likely to be challenged and debated for years to come. For now, the message from the nation’s highest court is clear: race can be used as grounds for immigration stops, and the protections of the Fourth Amendment have been narrowed in the process. Whether this marks a temporary shift or a permanent change in American law remains to be seen, but the consequences are already being felt across the country.
The ruling has left many Americans—immigrants and citizens alike—grappling with the reality of heightened scrutiny, uncertainty, and the enduring struggle to balance security with civil liberties.
