The Supreme Court on Monday granted the Trump administration’s request to lift restrictions on federal immigration enforcement operations in Los Angeles, allowing agents to resume stops based on factors that lower courts had deemed likely unconstitutional.
In a 6-3 decision, the Court stayed a temporary restraining order issued by U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong in July that had prohibited immigration officers from detaining individuals based solely on their race, ethnicity, language, occupation, or location. The majority issued no written explanation for their decision.
The case emerged from “Operation At Large,” an aggressive immigration enforcement campaign launched by the Department of Homeland Security in early June across Los Angeles and surrounding counties. The operation involved teams of armed and masked agents conducting raids at car washes, Home Depots, tow yards, farms, and other locations where day laborers and Latino workers commonly gather.
According to court documents, the raids resulted in nearly 2,800 immigration-related arrests in the first month. However, the operations also swept up U.S. citizens and legal residents, leading to a federal lawsuit challenging the enforcement tactics as unconstitutional racial profiling.
One plaintiff, Jason Gavidia, a Latino U.S. citizen, was working on his car at a tow yard when masked agents with military-style rifles ordered him to stop. Despite affirming three times that he was American, agents pushed him against a fence, twisted his arm behind his back, and racked a rifle when he couldn’t immediately recall the name of the hospital where he was born.
Another plaintiff, Jorge Viramontes, a dual U.S.-Mexican citizen who manages a car wash, was detained and driven to a warehouse for questioning even after showing his California driver’s license.
The plaintiffs argued that the government was conducting stops based on a pattern of relying solely on four factors: apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at particular locations like bus stops or car washes, and the type of work performed. They contended these factors, even in combination, cannot constitute reasonable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment.
District Judge Frimpong agreed, finding “ample evidence that seizures occurred based solely upon the four enumerated factors” and concluding the practice likely violated the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the restraining order on Aug. 1
Despite the restraining order, federal agents continued aggressive enforcement operations. On Aug. 6, just days after the Ninth Circuit upheld Judge Frimpong’s ruling, Border Patrol agents conducted what they dubbed “Operation Trojan Horse” at a Home Depot in Westlake, Los Angeles.
In this operation, a yellow Penske rental truck approached day laborers in the store’s parking lot around 6:45 AM, with someone asking for workers in Spanish. As workers gathered around the truck expecting employment opportunities, the trailer doors suddenly opened and masked Border Patrol agents—one reportedly wearing a cowboy hat—jumped out and began chasing people through the parking lot.
The operation resulted in the arrest of 16 individuals from Guatemala, Mexico, Honduras, and Nicaragua.
The use of the Penske truck drew sharp criticism from both legal experts and the rental company itself. Penske Truck Rental issued a statement saying it “strictly prohibits the transportation of people in the cargo area of its vehicles under any circumstances” and that the company “was not made aware that its trucks would be used in today’s operation and did not authorize this.”
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass condemned the raid, stating it “looks like the exact same thing that we were seeing before” the restraining order and announced the city was “considering all legal options.”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the only opinion explaining the majority’s position, arguing the government demonstrated “a fair prospect of success on the merits” and would suffer irreparable harm without the stay. He acknowledged that “apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion” but argued it could be a “relevant factor” when considered alongside other circumstances.
Kavanaugh emphasized the “extremely high number and percentage of illegal immigrants in the Los Angeles area” and noted that individuals often gather at certain locations for day work and work in jobs that “do not require paperwork and are therefore especially attractive to illegal immigrants.”
The Trump-appointed justice dismissed concerns about U.S. citizens being detained, claiming they “will be free to go after the brief encounter” once they establish their legal status.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, issued a blistering 21-page dissent condemning the majority’s decision as “unconscionably irreconcilable with our Nation’s constitutional guarantees.”
“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.”
The Court’s first Hispanic justice criticized what she saw as the creation of a “second-class citizenship status” where Latinos must carry documentation to prove they deserve to walk freely. She noted that nearly 47 percent of the Central District’s population identifies as Hispanic or Latino, and over 37 percent of Los Angeles County residents speak Spanish at home.
Sotomayor also rebuked the majority for issuing another consequential decision without explanation: “In the last eight months, this Court’s appetite to circumvent the ordinary appellate process and weigh in on important issues has grown exponentially. Its interest in explaining itself, unfortunately, has not.”
The ruling allows federal agents to immediately resume the aggressive enforcement tactics that had been temporarily halted.
The Supreme Court’s order is an interim measure while the case continues through the appeals process. The District Court is scheduled to hold hearings on September 24 regarding the plaintiffs’ motions for a preliminary injunction and class certification.
