In a decisive win for commonsense border policies, the Supreme Court has empowered the Trump administration to detain individuals suspected of being in the U.S. illegally.
The Daily Wire reported that the Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling, authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, reversed a lower court's ban on immigration agents' use of roving patrols in Los Angeles, allowing considerations of circumstantial factors like location and employment in areas with high unauthorized migrant populations.
The administration's immigration operations in the Los Angeles region ramped up, leading to more than 5,000 arrests since June 6.
Agents focused on spots where unauthorized migrants often seek work, such as Home Depot parking lots, car washes, and farms. Detentions also occurred on streets and in vehicles, aiming to address widespread unauthorized presence.
Gregory Bovino described the effort as focused on removing serious threats from the community.
On July 11, U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong issued a temporary restraining order against the agents. The order barred detentions based on factors including race, ethnicity, language, location, or employment.
Two weeks later, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district judge's decision, maintaining the pause on operations.
Trump Solicitor General D. John Sauer appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that reasonable suspicion remains a modest standard, far short of probable cause.
Sauer emphasized that agents could rely on the full context to identify potential unauthorized entries. He pointed out that in California's Central District, unauthorized migrants make up about one in every 10 residents, underscoring the need for flexible enforcement.
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to lift the lower court's order, permitting the resumption of roving patrols. Justice Brett Kavanaugh's 10-page opinion highlighted that officers have a solid legal foundation for detentions in Los Angeles, drawing on the totality of circumstances.
Kavanaugh noted the high concentration of unauthorized migrants in the area, their common gathering points for daily jobs, and roles in fields like day labor and construction that skip formal checks.
Many such individuals hail from Mexico or Central America and speak limited English, factors that can inform reasonable suspicion under the law.
"Here, those circumstances include: that there is an extremely high number and percentage of illegal immigrants in the Los Angeles area; that those individuals tend to gather in certain locations to seek daily work; that those individuals often work in certain kinds of jobs, such as day labor, landscaping, agriculture, and construction, that do not require paperwork and are therefore especially attractive to illegal immigrants," Kavanaugh wrote.
"And that many of those illegally in the Los Angeles area come from Mexico or Central America and do not speak much English."
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, challenging the majority's view as flawed. She argued that agents' tactics go beyond simple questioning, involving forceful measures that raise serious issues.
"Immigration agents are not conducting ‘brief stops for questioning,’ as the concurrence would like to believe," Sotomayor stated.
"They are seizing people using firearms, physical violence, and warehouse detentions." Sotomayor added that the operations affect more than just unauthorized migrants, impacting citizens as well.
"Nor are undocumented immigrants the only ones harmed by the Government’s conduct," she wrote. "United States citizens are also being seized, taken from their jobs, and prevented from working to support themselves and their families."
While Sotomayor's points nod to potential overreach, they overlook how targeted enforcement, when based on evidence, serves public safety without undue bias—a reminder that good intentions in progressive critiques can sometimes sideline practical realities.
Sauer's "low bar" for suspicion, as he put it, ensures agents aren't handcuffed in high-prevalence zones, striking a balance that prioritizes law over unchecked entry. Critics may decry it as harsh, but it's a measured step against the chaos of porous borders, delivered with judicial precision.
In the end, the ruling equips officers to tackle unauthorized presence effectively, proving that anti-woke resolve can coexist with empathy for all affected parties.
