SCOTUS Allows ICE to Keep Arresting Illegals in Sanctuary City Los Angeles

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.

You May Also Like

Fans of Karmelo Anthony Spark Backlash With Dance Mocking Austin Metcalf’s Death

Supporters of Karmelo Anthony have sparked a troubling social media craze that…

Beach Resort Fire Tragedy: 1 Dead, 1,700 Evacuated as Massive Blaze Sweeps Holiday Area

A massive blaze at a well-known Dominican Republic resort has left at…

Gilgo Beach Killer’s Ex-Wife Breaks Silence: “He Got What He Deserves”

Rex Heuermann’s ex-wife says the convicted Gilgo Beach serial killer received the…

Democrats Face Criticism Over Support for Foreign Rivals in World Cup Debate

Critics have turned their attention to New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani…

World Cup Falls Short of Hotel Demand Expectations in Cities Across the U.S.

San Francisco has emerged as one of the clearest examples of the…

First Look Inside Trump’s $400 Million New Air Force One

President Donald Trump on Friday offered reporters a first look inside his…

Major iPhone Security Breach Exposes Seven Models: Check If Your Device Is at Risk

Cybersecurity specialists say they have discovered a fresh vulnerability that could affect…

Mother and Child Swept Into Sea: Both Left in Critical Condition After Coastal Tragedy

A mother and child are in critical condition after a powerful sneaker…

Family Pushes Back on “Napping” Claim After College Girls’ Tragic Drowning Deaths

The grieving families of two California college students who drowned after being…

Andy Burnham Pledges to Nationalise Utilities if He Replaces Keir Starmer in No.10

Andy Burnham used his victory rally yesterday to set out a sweeping…

Mexico Edge Closer to Potential England Showdown in World Cup Knockout Stage

Roared on by another packed and thunderous crowd — and aided by…

Celebrity Hotspot Seized Over $1.2 Million Unpaid Bill in Shocking Financial Crackdown

A fashionable New York City restaurant has been abruptly shut down after…