— The US Supreme Court on Monday permitted wide-ranging immigration enforcement actions in Los Angeles to continue while lower-court litigation proceeds. The court lifted a temporary restraining order issued by US District Judge Maame E. Frimpong that had limited stops or questioning absent reasonable suspicion. The 6-3 decision came from the Court’s conservative majority and clears the way for federal agents to resume sweeps that began in June, even as civil-rights groups press legal challenges.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court issued a 6–3 order on September 8, 2025, lifting a federal temporary restraining order against Los Angeles immigration sweeps.
- US District Judge Maame E. Frimpong had enjoined stops based solely on apparent race, language (for example, speaking Spanish), presence at certain locations, or type of work.
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that apparent ethnicity “alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion” but may be a relevant factor when combined with other indicators.
- Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent warned that the ruling risks replicating alleged abuses — people being grabbed, forced to the ground and handcuffed — during the June operations.
- The raids, which began in June, included arrests at workplaces such as Home Depot and other job sites and prompted immediate protests across Los Angeles.
- The Trump administration previously deployed about 2,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to the area; a federal judge later ruled that deployment unlawful.
- DHS attorneys say officers target individuals based on immigration status, not race; civil-rights groups say evidence shows widespread, indiscriminate “roving” enforcement.
Background
Federal immigration sweeps in Los Angeles commenced in June 2025 amid an administration push for expanded removals of noncitizens living in the US without authorization. The operations targeted people at employment sites, transit hubs and other public locations; advocates described the activity as “roving patrols” that stopped people broadly rather than focusing on individually suspected unlawful presence. In response, immigrant-rights organizations and local officials filed suit in federal court, arguing the stops violated the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches and seizures and discriminated by appearance, language and occupation.
US District Judge Maame E. Frimpong issued a temporary restraining order after reviewing what she described as a “mountain of evidence” suggesting constitutional violations; her order barred stops based solely on factors such as apparent race, ethnicity, speaking Spanish, being at a particular type of location, or performing a specific kind of manual labor. The administration challenged the injunction, asserting that enforcement decisions target legal status and that the TRO improperly constrained ICE and DHS operations. The dispute moved quickly to the Supreme Court on emergency review.
Main Event
On September 8, 2025, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority stayed Judge Frimpong’s restraining order, allowing ICE and other federal agents to resume the contested tactics while litigation continues in the lower courts. The stay is interim relief: it removes the TRO’s operational limits for now but does not resolve the underlying constitutional claims. The Court’s opinion—authored in the stay order by Justice Brett Kavanaugh—stressed that while ethnicity alone cannot establish reasonable suspicion, it may be weighed alongside other observable factors.
The immediate effect was to permit enforcement activity that local authorities and advocates say had been halted. Civil-rights organizations warned of renewed large-scale stops and arrests; law enforcement officials signaled they would continue field operations under federal directives. The administration framed the decision as judicial recognition of its authority to enforce immigration laws and of the need to address unlawful presence, while Los Angeles leaders and community groups decried the ruling as a threat to civil liberties and community safety.
Legal teams on both sides indicated the case will return to lower courts for fuller proceedings on the merits. The Supreme Court’s order included language about the likelihood that the administration’s legal arguments could prevail at final judgment, signalling how a future appeal might be treated but not providing a definitive merits ruling at this stage.
Analysis & Implications
Constitutionally, the decision raises immediate questions about how courts will balance immigration enforcement objectives against Fourth Amendment protections. By allowing ethnicity and related indicators to be considered as part of a broader reasonable-suspicion calculus, the stay narrows the scope of Judge Frimpong’s protections while leaving open whether particular uses of those factors will survive closer judicial scrutiny. Lower courts will now confront concrete factual records about how officers conducted stops, and judges will have to parse fine distinctions between permissible and impermissible profiling.
Practically, communities with large immigrant populations may see increased contacts with federal agents. Civil-society groups argue such contacts can undermine trust in public safety, deter crime reporting, and disrupt local economies—especially when workplaces and transit hubs are subject to heightened scrutiny. Local officials have already warned that mass encounters can provoke protests and civil unrest, straining municipal resources and complicating cooperative policing models.
Politically, the ruling is likely to intensify national debate ahead of the 2026 election cycle. The administration portrays the order as a legal endorsement of stronger border- and interior-enforcement tools; opponents portray it as judicially sanctioned permission for discriminatory policing. The case may prompt additional statutory or policy responses at the state and municipal levels, including sanctuary law defenses or local ordinances intended to limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
Comparison & Data
| Action | Main Restriction | Effect |
|---|---|---|
| Judge Frimpong’s TRO (June–Sept 2025) | Prohibited stops based solely on apparent race, language, location, or job type | Temporarily halted broad, location-based enforcement in LA |
| Supreme Court Stay (8 Sept 2025) | Lifted TRO pending appeal; allows factors like ethnicity to be considered among others | Permits enforcement to resume while litigation proceeds |
The table above contrasts the temporary federal court limits with the Supreme Court’s interim relief. Context matters: the TRO was issued after documented field incidents beginning in June, while the Supreme Court’s stay is procedural and does not resolve whether those incidents violated constitutional guarantees. Observers will track metrics such as the number of stops, arrests, and complaints filed with oversight bodies as the case continues.
Reactions & Quotes
“Today’s ruling is not only dangerous — it’s un‑American and threatens the fabric of personal freedom in the United States of America.”
Karen Bass, Mayor of Los Angeles (statement)
Mayor Bass framed the decision as an assault on civil liberties and warned of harm to immigrant communities. Local leaders emphasized plans for legal and policy countermeasures, including expanded legal aid and monitoring of enforcement activity.
“To be clear, apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion; however, it can be a relevant factor when considered with other salient factors.”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh (Supreme Court order)
Kavanaugh’s formulation seeks to draw a line between outright racial profiling and a multi-factor assessment of suspicious circumstances; critics say that distinction may be difficult to enforce in practice. Lawyers for DHS argued in filings that officers are targeting immigration status, not race, but the factual record compiled by advocacy groups remains contested.
“Countless people in the Los Angeles area have been grabbed, thrown to the ground, and handcuffed simply because of their looks, their accents, and the fact they make a living by doing manual labour.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor (dissent)
Sotomayor’s dissent cited reported field incidents and warned the stay would subject more people to the same harms. Civil-rights attorneys and community organizers echoed that concern and said they will continue collecting eyewitness accounts and filings to bolster the ongoing case.
Unconfirmed
- Claims that ICE is now authorized to stop people solely on the basis of race without any other indicators remain unproven; the Court said ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion but may be relevant with other factors.
- Precise near-term enforcement plans, including the daily locations and targeting criteria ICE will use in Los Angeles this week, have not been publicly confirmed by DHS.
Bottom Line
The Supreme Court’s stay allows Los Angeles immigration enforcement operations to resume but does not decide the underlying constitutional questions. The practical outcome is immediate: federal agents may again conduct stops using a broader set of observable factors, while civil-rights groups and local officials prepare to press the case in lower courts and through public advocacy.
Watch for the next phases: detailed discovery in the district court, possible appeals on the merits, and empirical data on stops, arrests and complaints. Those records will determine whether courts ultimately uphold the administration’s tactics or reinstate tighter protections against profiling and indiscriminate enforcement.
Sources
- BBC News (media report by Nadine Yousif, 8 Sept 2025)
- Supreme Court of the United States (official court orders)
- US District Court filings (Central District of California) (official court filings and restraining order)
- Department of Homeland Security (official statements and legal filings)