SCOTUS Allows ICE to Keep Arresting Illegals in Sanctuary City Los Angeles
Share this @internewscast.com

The United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has allowed President Donald Trump’s administration to bypass a lower court’s decision. This earlier ruling had prevented Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from conducting federal immigration enforcement activities, citing these actions as racial profiling.

In July, Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong was appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by then-President Joe Biden. She had stopped ICE from executing raids in the sanctuary area of Los Angeles, California.

Before the Trump administration sought SCOTUS’s intervention to let ICE persist in capturing illegal immigrants in Los Angeles during the legal proceedings, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had supported Frimpong’s decision.

On Monday, Justice Kavanaugh, representing the conservative majority in a 6-3 decision, stated that “the government has adequately demonstrated the need for a stay while the appeal is pending.”

Justice Kavanaugh emphasized that “stopping individuals based on reasonable suspicions of unlawful presence has long played a critical role in U.S. immigration enforcement efforts for decades, spanning multiple presidential terms.” With the current rise in illegal immigration under Biden, ICE’s attention on Los Angeles appears justified.

Kavanaugh further noted, “Individuals in the country illegally seeking to avoid law enforcement questioning are essentially aiming to bypass the law, which does not constitute a significant legal interest.”

Meanwhile, Justice Sotomayor, in writing a dissenting opinion that Justices Kagan and Jackson joined, called the court’s stay on the lower court’s decision “yet 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,” Sotomayor writes. “Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent.”

The case is Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, No. 25A169 in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Share this @internewscast.com
You May Also Like

Disneyland Experiences Sanitation Challenges Amidst Cleaning Staff Strike

Visitors at Disneyland Paris were taken aback this week as the theme…

Kennedy Center Receives New Name Honoring Trump Legacy

Washington’s leading cultural venue is set to undergo a name change. On…

Renowned Photographer Reveals Untold Story Behind Karoline Leavitt’s Striking Portrait

The photographer responsible for Karoline Leavitt’s contentious Vanity Fair photo session has…

Dismissal of Ohio Football Coach Reveals Underlying Violation

Ohio football coach Brian Smith, who was recently let go, received an…

Trump Halts Visa Lottery Following Brown University Shooting Incident

Donald Trump has taken action to halt a green card lottery program…

Community Urges Demolition of Controversial Bondi Footbridge Amid Safety Concerns

There is a growing call for the demolition of the footbridge involved…

Tragic Consequences: How One Mom’s Fatal Mistake in a Hot Car Shattered Two Families

Amillio Gutierrez, a tiny toddler, was rushed into the emergency room in…

Tragic Loss: NASCAR Legend Greg Biffle and Family Perish in Devastating Plane Crash

The NASCAR community is in deep sorrow following the tragic deaths of…

New Scientific Study Unveils Genuine Causes of Death, Debunking the Myth of ‘Old Age

Researchers have found that even those who reach the age of 100…

Outpouring of Tributes as NASCAR Icon and Family Tragically Perish in Private Jet Accident

The racing community is in deep mourning following the tragic death of…

Rob Reiner’s Startling Farewell to Nick at Star-Studded Conan O’Brien Bash

In adherence to their Jewish tradition, director Rob Reiner and his wife…

High-Temperature Incineration Device Discovered in D4vd’s Residence Capable of Reaching 1600°F

A chilling discovery has emerged from the Hollywood Hills rental property of…