The Supreme Court's recent decision to allow immigration stops that consider race and ethnicity has ignited a firestorm of criticism. The 6-3 ruling, which overturned a lower court's restraining order, permits agents to stop and question individuals based partly on their apparent ethnicity, a move sharply condemned by legal experts and civil rights advocates.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh's opinion stated that while "apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion," it can be a relevant factor alongside other considerations. This nuanced position, however, fails to assuage critics who argue the ruling effectively sanctions racial profiling. Professor Ahilan Arulanantham of UCLA Law called the decision "shocking and appalling," highlighting its potential to legitimize discriminatory practices.
The ruling stands in stark contrast to the Supreme Court's 2023 decision against the use of race in college admissions. This inconsistency has drawn sharp rebukes, with legal scholar Ilya Somin characterizing it as illogical and contradictory to the court's established precedent against racial discrimination.
Concerns have already been raised about ICE agents confronting U.S. citizens and legal residents before they can prove their status, forcing many to carry documentation at all times. Anecdotal evidence points to incidents where individuals have been subjected to intimidation and harassment, raising fears of widespread abuses.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt attempted to downplay these concerns, emphasizing that agents use intelligence-led operations. She cited the Immigration and Nationality Act, asserting that reasonable suspicion is not solely based on race but encompasses a totality of circumstances. However, this explanation has been met with skepticism, with the House Homeland Security Committee Democrats countering that ICE has a documented history of detaining U.S. citizens, and that the administration's defense amounts to condoning racial profiling.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent powerfully highlighted the disproportionate impact on Latino communities in Los Angeles, emphasizing the potential for widespread harassment and abuse based on appearance and accent. The decision, she wrote, "needlessly subjects countless more to these exact same indignities." The ruling effectively gives the green light to practices critics deem indiscriminate, potentially leading to thousands more arrests and further fueling community unrest. At the heart of the controversy lies the interpretation of "reasonable suspicion," with opposing sides disagreeing on whether agents can target individuals based on ethnicity and occupation, particularly in low-wage jobs.
The White House, however, defends the ruling, claiming it is simply upholding established practices and that racial profiling is not occurring. But the debate continues, with the court’s decision raising serious questions about the balance between national security and the protection of civil rights for all Americans.
---
Originally published at: https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2025-09-09/critics-fault-supreme-court-for-allowing-immigration-stops-that-consider-race-ethnicity
