WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday blocked a federal judge's ruling that restricted federal officers’ ability to conduct immigration stops in the Los Angeles area, prompting a harsh rebuke from liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
The decision to grant an emergency request filed by the Trump administration puts on hold the July 11 ruling by Los Angeles-based U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong.
Attorney General Pam Bondi welcomed the decision, saying in an X post that it means immigration enforcement agents "can continue carrying out roving patrols in California without judicial micromanagement."
Sotomayor, the first Hispanic to serve on the court, was joined in dissent by the court's two other liberals.
“We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job. Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent,” she wrote.
The Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which protects against unlawful searches and seizures, should protect everyone, Sotomayor said.
"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," she added.
It was a sentiment echoed by Mohammad Tajsar, a lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union, which is among the groups challenging the policy.
"This decision is a devastating setback for our plaintiffs and communities who, for months, have been subjected to immigration stops because of the color of their skin, occupation, or the language they speak," he said in a statement.
Frimpong had ruled that immigration agents could not stop people purely because of their race, ethnicity or that they speak Spanish, because of their work or because of the places they congregate.
The lawsuit was filed in response to extensive sweeps carried out by federal agents in the Los Angeles region as part of the administration's hard-line immigration policies.
Immigrants and related groups that sued claimed the government's approach violated the Fourth Amendment, which requires law enforcement to have "reasonable suspicion" before stopping people who may not be lawful residents in the United States.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to block the decision on Aug. 1, prompting the Trump administration to turn to the Supreme Court.
The brief Supreme Court order did not explain the basis for the decision but Justice Brett Kavanaugh, part of the conservative majority, wrote a separate opinion in which he cast doubt on whether a constitutional violation took place.
He said that because there is a large population of undocumented immigrants in the Los Angeles area and they "tend to gather in certain locations to seek daily work," frequently work in construction or related jobs and may not speak English, law enforcement likely would have reasonable suspicion to stop people in many circumstances.
"Especially in an immigration case like this one, it is also important to stress the proper role of the Judiciary. The Judiciary does not set immigration policy or decide enforcement priorities," he added.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in the administration's court filing that the plaintiffs who challenged the practice did not have legal standing, the ruling was overly broad and it misinterpreted the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.
He added that the ruling threatened “to upend immigration officials’ ability to enforce the immigration laws” in the Los Angeles region.
Sauer said that while speaking Spanish or working in construction alone does not automatically create reasonable suspicion, such factors "can heighten the likelihood that someone is unlawfully present in the United States."
The lawsuit was brought by the United Farm Workers and the Los Angeles Worker Center Network, among other groups that advocate for workers' rights.
Individual plaintiffs also sued, including people who were detained by immigration agents in Los Angeles.
Jorge Hernandez Viramontes said the car wash he works at in Orange County was visited three times by immigration agents. In June, he was questioned and detained. Another plaintiff, Jason Brian Gavidia, was stopped and questioned in Los Angeles County. Both are U.S. citizens.
In court papers, lawyers for the plaintiffs said that as a result of the policy, "U.S. citizens and others who are lawfully present in this country have been subjected to significant intrusions on their liberty."
In her ruling, Frimpong "broke no new legal ground" in finding there was likely a Fourth Amendment violation, they added.
Frimpong said the government had agreed that roving patrols that pick up people without reasonable suspicion is a violation of the Constitution. In a separate part of the case, she ruled that people who were picked up were denied access to lawyers, in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
"What the federal government would have this court believe — in the face of a mountain of evidence presented in this case — is that none of this is actually happening," Frimpong wrote.
The Trump administration has filed regularly at the Supreme Court to block lower court rulings and prevailed in most cases.
