Supreme Court Ruling Raises Concerns Over ICE Stops and “reasonable Suspicion”
A recent Supreme Court decision has sparked debate over the scope of immigration enforcement and potential for racial profiling.The ruling upheld a Trump administration policy allowing ICE agents to briefly question individuals about their immigration status, even without specific evidence of wrongdoing, if agents have “reasonable suspicion” of illegal presence in the United States.
The case stemmed from challenges to ICE practices in Los Angeles, where reports surfaced of agents confronting U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents before they could demonstrate their status,leading some to carry documentation constantly. One incident in New York involved an individual being physically pushed by ICE agents before being able to present identification and afterward released.
The decision has drawn criticism from legal scholars and civil rights advocates. George mason University law professor Ilya Somin called the ruling a “badly wrong direction,” highlighting what he sees as a contradiction in upholding the constitutionality of generally prohibiting racial discrimination while together deeming its use “reasonable” under the Fourth Amendment.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent underscored the potential for discriminatory impact, noting that nearly half of Greater Los Angeles residents are Latino and Spanish-speaking. She wrote that the ruling would subject “countless more” people to “indignities” like being “grabbed,thrown to the ground and handcuffed” based on appearance,accent,or occupation.
At the heart of the dispute is the interpretation of ”reasonable suspicion.” The court has historically allowed stops and questioning based on specific evidence suggesting a law violation. However, disagreement arose over whether agents could consider factors like appearing Latino and working in low-wage jobs – such as day labor or car washes – as part of that “reasonable suspicion.”
Lawyers for the Trump administration and Justice Kavanaugh argued that stops could be based on the “totality of the circumstances,” including ethnicity and employment. They cited data suggesting approximately 10% of the Los Angeles population is undocumented.White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt responded to concerns about potential overreach by stating that individuals should not be worried, and that ICE operations are “targeted” and based on “law enforcement intelligence.” She reiterated that the Immigration and Nationality Act allows brief questioning based on reasonable suspicion, which she emphasized is not solely based on race but on a thorough assessment of the situation.
However, House Homeland Security Committee Democrats countered that ICE has previously detained U.S. citizens and that the Trump administration is defending racial profiling, warning that “nobody is safe when ‘looking Hispanic’ is treated as probable cause.”
Tom Homan, the White House border advisor, defended the ruling and asserted that racial profiling is not occurring. He stated that reasonable suspicion involves considering “a group of factors” and dismissed concerns as a “false narrative.” He maintained that agents do not detain individuals without legitimate reasonable suspicion.
