Barrett kavanaugh supreme court allows Latino stops: ROB BONTA ANNOUNCES LAWSUIT,IMMIGRATION ARRESTS

On September 8, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a controversial ruling in Noem v. Perdomo, lifting restrictions on certain immigration enforcement tactics in Los Angeles. The decision, announced via the Court’s emergency docket, allows federal agents—including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP)—to resume wide‑ranging patrols and stops in L.A. that had previously been curtailed by a lower court. The restrictions had barred stops or arrests based solely on race, language, job type, or location. 

The decision has stirred intense debate. Supporters argue it’s a necessary tool for enforcing immigration law; critics warn it opens the door to racial profiling and erosion of constitutional rights. Among the most vocal critics is California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who has led state efforts to block what he describes as “unconstitutional” practices and protections for Latino and immigrant communities. This article unpacks the ruling, Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s opinion, Attorney General Bonta’s lawsuit and responses, and what this means for civil liberties and Latino communities in the United States.

Background: From Judge Frimpong to the Supreme Court

Lower Court Ruling

Earlier in 2025, U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi‑Mensah Frimpong imposed a restraining order in Southern California. She concluded that ICE and CBP had been conducting immigration operations in Los Angeles using factors such as apparent ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, working certain jobs (e.g. day laborers, construction, car washes), and being in certain locations (bus stops, parking lots, Home Depot lots etc.). These were being used alone or in combination to make “roving patrol” stops and detentions without additional evidence. She found “a mountain of evidence” that these practices were unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. 

Her order prohibited stops or detentions based solely on those four factors. That is, agents could not use apparent race, language, job, or location alone to justify a stop. The injunction was upheld by the Ninth Circuit. 

Appeal and Supreme Court Action

The Department of Homeland Security and the federal government challenged the injunction, arguing that it hampered immigration enforcement, especially in heavily immigrant communities like L.A. The government contended that in practice, law enforcement always uses multiple factors, and that restricting use of these common markers—even if imperfect—was overly burdensome. 

On September 8, 2025, the Supreme Court, in a 6‑3 decision, granted an emergency request to stay (i.e. lift) Judge Frimpong’s order. This effectively allows immigration enforcement to resume using “roving patrols” with fewer restrictions. 

What the Supreme Court Said & Kavanaugh’s Role

Majority, Concurrence, and Dissent

The Court’s decision came on the emergency/executive docket (“shadow docket”) and did not provide a full, detailed majority opinion explaining all legal reasoning. However, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a concurrence that helps clarify the majority view. 

In his concurrence, Justice Kavanaugh stated:

“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.” 

Thus, according to Kavanaugh, while race, language, or accent alone are insufficient to justify a stop, they may be considered in conjunction with other indicators (location, type of work, behavior, etc.). 

The dissent, authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, sharply criticized the ruling. Sotomayor warned that it could lead to the government seizing people who look Latino, speak Spanish, or work in low‑wage jobs, with little else needed for “reasonable suspicion.” Such practices, she argued, threaten the constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, and place citizens and immigrants alike at risk.

Several constitutional and legal issues form the core of this debate:

• Fourth Amendment Rights: The amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The question is: what constitutes reasonable suspicion? Historically, courts have required more than just appearance or demographics; there must be specific articulable facts. If race or ethnicity are allowed as “relevant factors,” does that lower the bar too far? 

• Equal Protection / Racial Discrimination: The effect of this ruling may disproportionately impact Latino communities. Critics argue that though race alone cannot be used, in practice markers like accent or skin color are heavily correlated with race. What is the point at which a factor becomes a proxy for impermissible discrimination? 

• Executive Authority vs Judicial Oversight: The ruling reflects tensions between the executive branch’s power to enforce immigration laws and the judiciary’s role in ensuring constitutional limits. The government argued that Judge Frimpong’s order unduly constrained enforcement. The Supreme Court, with Kavanaugh’s concurrence, gave deference to those enforcement concerns. 

California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s Lawsuit and Response

Legal Action

Rob Bonta, California’s Attorney General, has been one of the most active state officials challenging these stops. In August 2025, Bonta led a coalition of 17 state attorneys general in filing amicus briefs supporting the litigation challenging ICE’s and CBP’s practices in Southern California. The coalition argues that stops based solely on appearance, language, or job type amount to racial profiling and violate the Constitution. 

The lawsuit at hand was brought by immigrant advocacy groups, including individuals (some U.S. citizens, others not) who had been stopped, detained, or arrested. Among them is Pedro Vasquez Perdomo, one of the named plaintiffs, who was arrested waiting for a work pick‑up at a bus stop. Brian Gavidia, a U.S. citizen born in