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

Ancient Iron Age Artifacts Unearthed in Norfolk: Rare Battle Trumpet Among Remarkable Discoveries

An extraordinary discovery has been made in West Norfolk, where a fascinating…

NYC Mayoral Aide Becomes Emotional When Discussing Mother’s Residence

A key adviser to New York City’s newly elected socialist mayor became…

Ex-British Soldier Shares Harrowing Experience of Losing Legs to IED Explosion

A former British soldier has shared his harrowing experience of losing both…

Mayor’s Explosive Reaction: Blaming ICE for Tragic Shooting Sparks Controversy

In a powerful statement directed at ICE, Mayor Jacob Frey expressed strong…

Texas A&M Student’s Tragic Fall Followed Heated Argument, Say Neighbors

Over a month has passed since a Texas A&M student tragically fell…

Exclusive Insight: Maduro Relaxes in Luxury at Beachside Mansion Amidst Socialist Regime

Nicolás Maduro’s journey began in modest surroundings. He was born in 1962…

Unveiled: Chilling 911 Call Precedes Gruesome Ohio Couple’s Murder

A tragic incident involving an Ohio dentist and his wife has left…

Trump’s Rule-Breaking Raises Questions on the Relevance of International Treaties

For centuries, Britain and France have been pivotal players in shaping global…

Gavin Newsom Criticized Over Controversial Remark Directed at MAGA Influencer

California Governor Gavin Newsom has come under fire for his reaction to…

Trump Attributes Minneapolis ICE Shooting to ‘Disorderly Agitator

In response to a tragic incident in Minneapolis involving a fatal shooting…

Police Error: Teen Mistakenly Reported Alive After Car Crash Identified

In a shocking turn of events, the Daily Mail has disclosed the…

Unveiling the Surprising Side of Chevy Chase

There’s a certain relief in being able to say, “I’m not Chevy…