The Supreme Court lifted a district court’s restrictions on federal authorities’ conduct of immigration operations in Southern California, handing the Trump administration another significant win via the high court’s emergency docket.
The high court ruled 6-3 on Monday in favor of halting a ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California that prevented federal immigration officers from relying on apparent race, language spoken, location, or job as sole reasons to inquire about a person’s immigration status in the Los Angeles area. The Supreme Court’s split came on ideological lines, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh writing a concurrence in favor of the ruling.
Kavanaugh concluded in his opinion that the Trump administration showed it was likely to succeed in the case and suffer irreparable harm if the district court’s ruling is not paused.
“In my view, the Government has made a sufficient showing to obtain a stay pending appeal. To begin with, given the significance of the issue to the Government’s immigration enforcement efforts, this Court would likely grant certiorari if the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s injunction,” Kavanaugh wrote. “In addition, on two alternative grounds, the Government has demonstrated a fair prospect of reversal of the District Court’s injunction.”
He also concluded that the administration’s potential harm in being prevented from enforcing immigration laws because of the court-imposed restrictions outweighed the interests of illegal immigrants seeking to avoid federal immigration officers.
“In any event, the balance of harms and equities in this case tips in favor of the Government. The interests of individuals who are illegally in the country in avoiding being stopped by law enforcement for questioning is ultimately an interest in evading the law. That is not an especially weighty legal interest,” Kavanaugh continued.
Kavanaugh also wrote about the judiciary’s role in immigration law, noting that the courts are not meant to set policy, but rather to ensure enforcement, as prescribed by a presidential administration, is lawful.
“Especially in an immigration case like this one, it is also important to stress the proper role of the Judiciary. The Judiciary does not set immigration policy or decide enforcement priorities. It should come as no surprise that some Administrations may be more laissez-faire in enforcing immigration law, and other Administrations more strict,” he wrote.
“Article III judges may have views on which policy approach is better or fairer. But judges are not appointed to make those policy calls. We merely ensure, in justiciable cases, that the Executive Branch acts within the confines of the Constitution and federal statutes,” Kavanaugh added.
The justice pointed to the high court’s rulings in 2023’s United States v. Texas and 2022’s Biden v. Texas, where the high court declined to make policy decisions about immigration enforcement when the Biden administration had opted for less strict enforcement of illegal immigration.
“Just as this Court a few years ago declined to step outside our constitutionally assigned role to improperly compel greater Executive Branch enforcement of the immigration laws … we now likewise must decline to step outside our constitutionally assigned role to improperly restrict reasonable Executive Branch enforcement of the immigration laws. Consistency and neutrality are hallmarks of good judging, and in my view, we abide by those enduring judicial values in this case by granting the stay,” Kavanaugh wrote.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a lengthy dissent to the ruling, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, in which she claimed the majority decision was “another grave misuse of our emergency docket.”
“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. Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent,” Sotomayor wrote, declaring the ruling “unconscionably irreconcilable with our Nation’s constitutional guarantees.”
The ruling is significant for the Trump administration’s immigration operations in the greater Los Angeles area, which the lower court’s ruling has restricted since mid-July. Southern California, which has a large illegal immigrant population, has been a key target for the administration’s immigration operations.
Attorney General Pam Bondi celebrated the “massive victory” on the Supreme Court’s emergency docket in a post on X Monday.
SUPREME COURT ALLOWS TRUMP TO FIRE FTC COMMISSIONER WHILE CONSIDERING CASE
“In a 6-3 decision, the Court stayed an injunction that attempted to hamper ICE operations across the Los Angeles area. Now, ICE can continue carrying out roving patrols in California without judicial micromanagement,” Bondi wrote. “We will continue fighting and winning for [President Donald Trump’s] agenda in court.”
The Supreme Court handed Trump another interim win earlier Monday when Chief Justice John Roberts granted an administrative stay allowing a Democrat-appointed Federal Trade Commission member to be fired for now as the high court considers the case.
