U.S. Supreme Court Lifts Ban on Immigration Stops in Los Angeles: What the 6-3 Ruling Means

On September 8, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a major immigration enforcement decision that is already sparking debate across California and beyond. In a 6-3 ruling, the Court lifted a temporary injunction that had restricted immigration stops in Los Angeles. The injunction, issued by a district court in July, barred federal agents from questioning people solely based on racial traits, appearance, or accent.

The case, Kristi Noem et al. v. Pedro Vasquez Perdomo et al. (No. 25A169), represents one of the most closely watched immigration enforcement cases of 2025. By siding with the federal government, the Court has effectively restored the ability of immigration officers to conduct indiscriminate stops in Los Angeles while the lawsuit continues.

Background: Why the Injunction Was Issued

In July 2025, a federal judge ruled that racial or ethnic appearance and accent alone were not enough to justify immigration questioning. The ruling came after advocacy groups, including the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, Public Counsel, and the Immigrant Defenders Law Center, argued that such stops amounted to unconstitutional racial profiling in immigration law.

These groups contended that residents in immigrant-heavy communities were being unfairly targeted and harassed, creating a chilling effect that discouraged cooperation with law enforcement. The district court agreed and issued a temporary injunction halting the practice in the Los Angeles area.

The federal government, represented by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, immediately appealed, arguing that the injunction intruded on executive authority and threatened federal sovereignty in immigration enforcement.

Supreme Court’s 6-3 Ruling

The Supreme Court immigration ruling of 2025 lifted the injunction, siding with the government’s position. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion emphasizing that enforcement priorities are for the executive branch, not judges, to decide.

“The Judiciary does not set immigration policy or decide enforcement priorities,” Kavanaugh stated. “It should come as no surprise that some administrations may be more laissez-faire in enforcing immigration law, and other administrations more strict. Article III judges may have views on which policy approach is better or fairer. But judges are not appointed to make those policy calls.”

By granting the government’s request, the Court signaled it sees a strong chance that the lower court’s injunction would not withstand full review.

Effects on Los Angeles Immigration Enforcement

The immediate impact is felt in Los Angeles immigration enforcement practices, where federal officers now have broader authority to conduct stops. Community advocates warn this could lead to widespread racial profiling, disproportionately affecting Latino, Asian, and immigrant residents.

Critics argue that allowing stops based on appearance or accent undermines constitutional protections against discrimination and unreasonable searches. They predict the ruling will erode trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement, with victims of crime less likely to report offenses for fear of immigration consequences.

For immigrant-rights organizations, the Los Angeles immigration stops case represents a broader struggle against practices they view as discriminatory. For the government, however, the decision reaffirms its power to set enforcement priorities without judicial interference.

Broader National Implications

While the ruling directly concerns immigration stops in Los Angeles, its implications extend nationwide. If the Supreme Court ultimately rules that appearance- or accent-based stops are permissible, it could open the door to similar enforcement strategies in immigrant-rich areas across the country.

The decision also highlights a long-running tension in U.S. immigration law: how to balance executive authority in immigration enforcement with constitutional protections. Past cases, such as Arizona v. United States (2012), limited state-level immigration enforcement, but this ruling underscores the federal government’s latitude.

What Happens Next in the Immigration Stops Case

The underlying lawsuit is still moving through the courts. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the constitutional question of whether stops based solely on appearance or accent violate the Fourth or Fifth Amendments. Instead, the Court lifted the temporary injunction, allowing enforcement to resume while the case proceeds.

Whether the justices ultimately issue a full ruling on the merits could shape how racial profiling in immigration law is addressed in future cases. For now, the decision gives the executive branch broad authority to carry out Los Angeles immigration enforcement with limited judicial oversight.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court immigration ruling of September 2025 marks a turning point in the debate over immigration stops in Los Angeles. With a 6-3 majority emphasizing deference to executive authority, the Court has restored the government’s ability to conduct appearance-based stops in immigrant-heavy neighborhoods, at least for now.

As the case develops, it will continue to test the boundaries between civil rights protections and federal enforcement discretion. For immigrant communities in Los Angeles and across the nation, the ruling raises urgent questions about fairness, discrimination, and the future of immigration enforcement in the United States.

Legal Disclaimer
This article is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Immigration outcomes depend on timely filing, individual case facts, and prevailing laws and policies. Please call attorney Thomas M. Lee at 213-251-5533 for a free legal consultation