Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo
Headline: Court blocks lower-court ban and allows immigration agents to keep making Los Angeles-area street and workplace stops based on location, work, language, and appearance while appeals proceed, affecting workers and communities.
Holding:
- Allows immigration officers to continue investigative stops in Los Angeles area while appeals proceed.
- Keeps District Court’s ban on stops based on ethnicity, language, location, or job from taking effect.
- Leaves final outcome open while appeals and possible Supreme Court review continue.
Summary
Background
Federal immigration officials led by the Department of Homeland Security and Secretary Kristi Noem sought review after a federal judge in the Central District of California temporarily barred officers from making stops based solely on four factors: presence at certain locations (like bus stops, car washes, or day‑labor sites), the type of work, speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent, and apparent race or ethnicity. The District Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO). Plaintiffs are several people stopped during the enforcement actions and advocacy groups who say those stops were unlawful.
Reasoning
The Court granted an interim stay of the District Court’s July 11 order while the government’s appeal and any timely petition for Supreme Court review proceed. Justice Kavanaugh, in a concurrence supporting the stay, said the government showed a fair prospect of reversing on two main issues: (1) plaintiffs’ ability to get broad forward‑looking relief under standing rules, and (2) whether prior Supreme Court decisions allow brief immigration stops based on the totality of circumstances. He also stressed that the government showed likely irreparable harm and that the balance of harms favored enforcement. The stay is conditioned: it lasts while the Ninth Circuit appeal and any certiorari petition are pending, and it ends automatically if certiorari is denied or when the Court’s judgment is sent down if review is granted.
Real world impact
The stay lets immigration officers continue the challenged investigative stops in the Los Angeles region while appeals go forward. If the injunction ultimately is upheld on appeal, those limitations could return; if the government wins, the TRO will be reversed. The order therefore preserves current enforcement practices for now.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Sotomayor (joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson) dissented, describing armed, masked raids and thousands of arrests, arguing the TRO was based on strong evidence that stops were often made without individualized suspicion and sometimes used force, and saying the government had not shown likely success on the merits.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?