Supreme Court Immigration Ruling: ICE Stops Resume in Los Angeles
Published September 8, 2025
In a 6–3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily stayed a lower court order that had limited federal immigration stops in Los Angeles. The ruling, part of the Court’s controversial “shadow docket,” allows Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to resume enforcement while litigation continues. This is one of the most significant Supreme Court immigration decisions of 2025, raising pressing questions about constitutional protections under the Fourth Amendment.
Although I practice law here in Nebraska, I follow these national constitutional and immigration cases closely. They often shape how federal agencies approach enforcement everywhere, including in the Midwest.
Legal Background: Why This Case Matters
The case began with a class-action lawsuit filed in federal court by Latino plaintiffs—including U.S. citizens—challenging ICE raids across Southern California. Plaintiffs argued the raids violated the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
In July, a federal district judge in Los Angeles issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) barring federal agents from conducting stops based solely on ethnicity, language, occupation, or location (such as at day laborer sites). The Justice Department appealed, arguing the TRO was overly broad and interfered with ICE’s ability to enforce immigration laws.
The Supreme Court’s Decision: Shadow Docket Action
On September 8, 2025, the Supreme Court voted 6–3 to grant an emergency stay of the TRO. This temporary order permits ICE to resume stops under the “totality of the circumstances” standard. That means officers may not rely solely on race or language but can consider those factors in combination with others, such as location or behavior, to establish reasonable suspicion.
This reasoning echoes the Court’s earlier precedent in United States v. Brignoni-Ponce (1975), which held that ethnicity cannot be the only basis for an immigration stop but may be one factor among several.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, concurring, emphasized that common-sense policing should not be constrained by rigid rules. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, dissenting, warned the ruling risks racial profiling and weakens constitutional safeguards for immigrant communities.
What This Means for Communities Nationwide
While the immediate impact of this ruling is on Los Angeles, its legal reasoning has potential implications across the United States. If courts continue to permit broader immigration stops under the “totality of the circumstances” standard, we may see similar enforcement tactics in other regions, including the Midwest.
For Nebraska residents—particularly immigrants and their families—this decision is a reminder that national rulings can ripple into local enforcement priorities. Even if ICE activities here look different than in California, the constitutional questions are the same: What limits are there on government power to stop, question, or detain people based on how they look, speak, or where they are found?
What’s Next in the Legal Battle
This decision is not final. It simply suspends the TRO and allows ICE enforcement to continue while the case proceeds. The lawsuit now returns to the district court for preliminary injunction hearings, with a likely appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
Ultimately, courts must decide whether ICE’s practices amount to unconstitutional discrimination or fall within the permissible “totality of the circumstances” approach.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q: Can ICE stop me in Los Angeles under this new Supreme Court ruling?
Yes. ICE patrols have resumed in Los Angeles. However, agents may not stop someone based solely on being Latino or speaking Spanish. They must base suspicion on a combination of factors.
Q: What are my Fourth Amendment rights in an ICE stop?
You are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. That includes the right to ask if you are free to leave, request an attorney, and avoid answering questions about immigration status without counsel.
Q: Does this decision only affect Los Angeles?
Yes—for now. But advocates warn it could set a precedent for expanded immigration enforcement in other U.S. cities, including here in the Midwest.
Q: What should I do if I believe my rights were violated in Nebraska?
Consult an immigration attorney in Nebraska or a civil rights attorney immediately. Document what happened, preserve any evidence or witness accounts, and seek legal guidance.
Conclusion: Why This Matters for Nebraskans
This Supreme Court ruling underscores how quickly the immigration enforcement landscape can change. While the case is centered in Los Angeles, the constitutional principles at stake affect all Americans—including Nebraskans.
If you or a loved one in Nebraska has been stopped by ICE or believes your constitutional rights have been violated, don’t navigate this alone. Contact our office for a confidential consultation to understand your rights and options. Protecting your constitutional rights starts with having trusted counsel on your side.