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

Trump Celebrates Major Win with FBI: “Law and Order Returns!

President Donald Trump has taken to his Truth Social platform to celebrate…

Hugh Jackman and Sutton Foster Spotted Together Following Deborra-Lee Reunion

Hugh Jackman was recently seen alongside his girlfriend Sutton Foster, marking their…

Bush Family Legacy Faces Scrutiny as Heir Preempts Daily Mail Revelations

A new report reveals that a member of the Bush family, who…

Exploring NYC’s Evolving Tech Education Landscape in the Era of AI

As the school year unfolds in New York, it is becoming increasingly…

Last Known Location of Missing 9-Year-Old Melodee Buzzard Revealed

A young girl who has been largely unseen since she stopped attending…

Army Launches Investigation into New Jersey Soldier’s Death Following New York Training

The U.S. Army has launched an investigation into the tragic death of…

Top-Ranked Universities Unveiled: Discover Students’ Most Highly Rated Institutions

Each year, universities pour millions into enhancing the student experience, yet the…

Controversy Surrounds Obama’s Presidential Library Design Amid Criticism as ‘Eyesore

Barack Obama is drawing criticism over the $850 million price tag for…

Tragic 4-Car Collision Near NJ Elementary School Claims Lives of Two People and a Dog

A tragic four-vehicle collision that occurred Sunday night near a New Jersey…

Graham Linehan Cleared of Further Investigation for Controversial Tweets

Graham Linehan, co-creator of the popular sitcom “Father Ted” and a vocal…

Wall Street Soars as Trump Announces Key Meeting with China’s Xi Jinping

Today, the stock market is experiencing an upswing as former President Donald…

Iraq Confirms Continued Presence of US Military Advisers Amid Rising IS Threat from Syria

By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, Associated Press BAGHDAD (AP) — Iraq’s Prime Minister announced…