The U.S. Supreme Court recently granted the Trump administration a major win on immigration enforcement by vacating a lower‑court injunction limiting ICE operations in Los Angeles. That injunction—issued by Judge Maame Frimpong and upheld by the Ninth Circuit—had barred ICE from making stops or arrests based solely on factors like perceived race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish (or with an accent), one’s workplace, or presence in certain locations (e.g. car washes or bus stops).

In its stay, the Supreme Court allowed those restrictions to be lifted while litigation continues. In a concurring statement, Justice Brett Kavanaugh clarified that though “apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion,” it may be considered as one factor among others when assessing whether a stop is justified. In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, warned that the decision opens the door to discriminatory policing and weakens constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The ruling immediately restores ICE’s ability to resume broad “roving” enforcement operations in the Los Angeles area. While the Supreme Court’s action adopts an emergency “shadow docket” approach (issuing a brief order without full explanation), the underlying case—Noem v. Perdomo—will continue through the courts. The broader legal question centers on how far ICE may go in leveraging demographic or behavioral cues in immigration enforcement without running afoul of the Fourth Amendment.