An ICE agent is on patrol in Southern California. In a split second, they must decide whether to stop and interrogate a person based on a handful of factors. Can they consider the language a person is speaking, their apparent ethnicity, or the fact that they are near a day-labor pickup spot?
The Supreme Court has just weighed in on this profound constitutional question.
In a brief and unexplained emergency order, the Court’s majority has allowed the Trump administration’s controversial “roving patrols” to continue. The decision has ignited a fiery and public battle among the justices themselves, a battle that goes to the very heart of the Fourth Amendment and the meaning of freedom from government seizure.
Discussion
Finally some common sense! Enforce the law without PC nonsense stopping patriots!
Kidnapping people is a criminal. Ice Needs to be stopped
We finally have a real patriot and leader in the Oval Office, one who puts the republic and her citizens first. We have a majority on the Supreme Court who actually follow the US Constitution, not their own opinionated "interpretations". I only wish we could be rid of those other three DEI hires, and get real judges for a full majority of constitutional members. We need ICE headquarters in every community, with full power to enforce our laws by any legal means necessary.
The decision to resume patrols raises some deep concerns. Are we heading towards a slippery slope where racial profiling becomes normalized? While I support upholding the law, we must ensure individual freedoms are respected and not infringe upon them without just cause. Let's hope wisdom prevails.
Leave a Comment
Leave a Comment
A Green Light from the “Shadow Docket”
The case came to the Supreme Court on an emergency basis. A federal district court, and then the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, had blocked ICE’s roving patrols in seven Southern California counties. Both lower courts found that the practice – in which agents stop and question individuals who appear to be Latino – likely violated the Fourth Amendment because the stops were not based on the required “reasonable suspicion” of a specific crime.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority, acting on its controversial “shadow docket,” has now lifted that block without offering any legal reasoning. The practical effect is that the patrols, which lower courts deemed likely unconstitutional, can resume while the legal case proceeds.
A 50-Year-Old Precedent and the Fourth Amendment
This entire conflict is a modern test of a controversial, 50-year-old Supreme Court precedent. In the 1975 case United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, the Court ruled that while “apparent Mexican ancestry” alone is not enough to justify an immigration stop, it can be considered a “relevant factor” when combined with other specific facts.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in a concurring opinion, argued that the Court’s new order is consistent with this precedent. He wrote that apparent ethnicity, when considered with other factors, “can constitute at least reasonable suspicion.” This is the legal justification for allowing the patrols to continue.
A Warning About Lost Freedoms
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a fiery dissent joined by the Court’s other two liberal justices, argued that this legal standard is being abused in practice to justify racial profiling. She issued a stark and powerful warning about the consequences of the majority’s decision.
“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,” Sotomayor wrote. “Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent.”
She also took direct aim at the majority for its use of the unexplained shadow docket, noting that the Court’s “appetite to circumvent the ordinary appellate process and weigh in on important issues has grown exponentially.”
The Supreme Court’s brief order has massive, real-world consequences for millions of people in Southern California. The fierce and public clash between the justices has laid bare one of the most difficult and unresolved questions in American constitutional law: How do we secure our borders without sacrificing the Fourth Amendment’s promise that all people in the United States should be free from unreasonable seizure, regardless of what they look like or what language they speak?
Finally, some sanity! Protect our borders and stop the nonsense, do your job ICE!