The Supreme Court just reset the rules of engagement on immigration enforcement in Los Angeles—and, by extension, much of the country.
In a 6–3 decision, the Court stayed a lower-court order that had barred ICE and Border Patrol from conducting so-called “roving patrols” and stopping people without probable cause. Practically, it means federal agents may, for now, resume making brief, investigative stops based on reasonable suspicion—an authority the Trump administration argued had been improperly handcuffed by the district court and the Ninth Circuit.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurrence lays out the logic: immigration officers may consider the totality of the circumstances in evaluating reasonable suspicion.
In Los Angeles, he noted, those circumstances include the unusually high prevalence of unlawful presence; predictable gathering spots for day labor; industries that typically do not require I-9 paperwork (landscaping, agriculture, construction); and the frequent use of non-English languages among recent arrivals from Mexico and Central America. Reasonable suspicion, as Solicitor General D. John Sauer emphasized, is a low bar—well below probable cause—and it is designed for precisely these short, investigative stops.
The backdrop is a summer of stepped-up enforcement in the L.A. region. DHS says more than 5,000 arrests have been made since June 6, with operations fanning out to Home Depot parking lots, car washes, farms, sidewalks, and vehicles. The district court, via a temporary restraining order from Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, tried to halt those tactics by prohibiting agents from considering race, language, location, or type of work; the Ninth Circuit let that order stand. The Supreme Court’s stay unfreezes the operation while the underlying case proceeds.
The dissent, led by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, argues the majority is underplaying the real-world costs. In her view, what’s happening on the ground isn’t “brief stops for questioning,” but seizures involving firearms, force, and warehouse-style detention—and not limited to undocumented individuals.
She warns that citizens have been swept up, pulled from jobs, and prevented from working, and that loosening judicial constraints invites racial profiling.
These are the two frames the country now has to hold at once. On one side, a federal government asserting its congressionally delegated authority to enforce immigration law using longstanding investigative standards. On the other, a warning that those standards can be abused—and that communities with large immigrant populations will feel the friction most acutely.
Legally, the decision is significant but provisional. A stay is not a final merits ruling; it signals that the majority believes the government is likely to prevail and that allowing enforcement to continue will not irreparably harm the plaintiffs while the case proceeds. Operationally, the signal to DHS is unambiguous: proceed under the reasonable-suspicion rubric while the litigation plays out.
