Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo Decision Reshapes Limits on Immigration Raids in Los Angeles

California National Guard in front of protestors. Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

On Sept. 8, the United States Supreme Court expanded the scope of federal immigration enforcement in its 6-3 ruling in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo. Writing for the majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh stated, “To be clear, apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion; under this Court’s case law regarding immigration stops, however, it can be a ‘relevant factor’ when considered along with other salient factors.” 

The decision overturned a California district court order that had sharply limited Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations in Los Angeles and established a significant precedent for how immigration stops can be conducted across the U.S. 

​​The legal pathway to the September decision began in July 2025, when five individuals who were stopped or arrested during the raids, along with several advocacy groups, filed a class action lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security. The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the raids, arguing that detaining people primarily because of their race or ethnicity violated the Fourth Amendment. The plaintiffs sought to end what they viewed as unlawful stops and arrests, secure due process and guarantee access to counsel for those in immigration detention. 

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California sided with the plaintiffs. It issued an order prohibiting ICE agents from basing stops on any combination of four factors: race or ethnicity, language, location and occupation. The Department of Justice quickly requested a stay, so the restrictions would not take effect during the appeal process. Justice Elena Kagan, who handles emergency applications from the Ninth Circuit, referred the request to the full Court. The justices granted the stay, allowing ICE operations to continue normally as the case moved forward. After the Ninth Circuit heard the appeal, the Supreme Court agreed to take up the case and ultimately overturned the California district court’s order, broadening the legal scope of ICE enforcement.

In the majority opinion, Kavanaugh wrote the plaintiffs failed to show that immigration agents had violated the Fourth Amendment. He emphasized that “whether an officer has reasonable suspicion depends on the totality of the circumstances,” listing several conditions relevant to the Los Angeles context. These included the high number and percentage of undocumented immigrants in the region, their tendency to gather in specific areas to seek daily work, their employment in sectors such as day labor, landscaping, agriculture and construction, where paperwork is limited, and the fact that many come from Mexico or Central America and may not speak much English. 

By outlining these factors, the Court concluded that ICE enforcement aligned with existing precedent on reasonable suspicion and reaffirmed the federal government’s broad authority to enforce immigration law. Kavanaugh added, “It should come as no surprise that some administrations may be more laissez-faire in enforcing immigration law, and other administrations more strict,” noting that immigration enforcement priorities will inevitably vary with political leadership.

Federal officials praised the decision. Gregory Bovino, border patrol chief in the El Centro sector, rejected allegations of profiling in an interview with the Associated Press. He explained that targets are identified using intelligence and defended the optional use of masks by agents who fear that revealing their identities could put them at risk. DHS highlighted Bovino’s operations, stating his success in “getting the worst of the worst out of the Los Angeles region speaks for itself.” 

However, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a forceful dissent. Writing for the minority, Sotomayor warned, “Concluding that stops based on these four factors alone, even when taken together, could not satisfy the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of reasonable suspicion. 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.” Their opinion raised concerns about potential racial profiling and the erosion of constitutional safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The implications of Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo extend far beyond California. By allowing ethnicity to be considered as one factor, among the other circumstances, the Supreme Court broadened the criteria for immigration stops nationwide. This could influence enforcement strategies in cities with large immigrant populations, from Houston to Chicago, and make it harder for states or municipalities to limit federal immigration raids through legal challenges. 

At the same time, Kavanaugh’s acknowledgment that different administrations may enforce immigration law with varying intensity underscores how political leadership will shape how this new legal standard is applied.

The decision ultimately redefines the balance between constitutional rights and federal immigration authority. By validating apparent ethnicity as a relevant factor in immigration stops, the Court strengthened the federal government’s discretion in immigration enforcement while raising new questions about civil liberties and equal protection. As future administrations set their enforcement priorities, the tension between national immigration policy and individual rights is likely to remain at the forefront of American legal and political debate.