ICE Raids Spark Debate on Profiling & Constitutional Rights
On July 2, the ACLU and other civil rights groups filed a class action lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security and Secretary Kristi Noem, representing individuals, organizations, and a legal service provider affected by the ICE raids in Southern California. On July 11th, U.S. District Court Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong for the Central District of California issued an injunction barring federal agents from stopping individuals solely based on their race, ethnicity, or spoken language. The civil rights groups who filed the case argued that ICE is unconstitutionally using its authority to detain individuals based on those characteristics.
The case was taken up to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on July 28th, where the court ruled in favor of the civil rights groups, affirming that the basis of the ICE detainments in question is unconstitutional. In her ruling, she argued that the “reasonable suspicion” standard, which is used by law enforcement to justify detaining undocumented individuals, cannot be based on a person’s “apparent race or ethnicity,” accent when speaking English, profession, or presence at locations where undocumented immigrants may be expected to gather.
Judge Frimpong’s injunction was stayed by the Supreme Court decision in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo. Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion argued that the legal reasoning for the Supreme Court’s ruling lies in the idea that judges “may have views on which policy approach is better or fairer. But judges are not appointed to make those policy calls.” He went further, arguing that given the context of the population in LA, it is lawful for ICE to exercise its power by considering ethnicity alongside other factors as part of the “totality of the circumstances.”
As this case exemplifies, the pattern of partisan rulings persists. In this case, the majority of the justices who declared that ICE should be able to use a more general investigation approach are all Republican appointees. In comparison, the Democratic appointees on the Court—Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, and Justice Jackson—ruled that ICE’s actions in this case were unconstitutional.
In a twenty-one-page dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, argued that ICE’s interpretation of “reasonable suspicion” violates the Fourth Amendment’s protection against “unreasonable searches and seizures.” In direct opposition to Justice Kavanaugh’s argument, Justice Sotomayor expressed that using contextual evidence, such as one's accent to detain individuals, leaves all Latinos at risk of being “fair game to be seized at any time.”
Outrage from local LA communities ensued. In response to the increase in ICE raids, immigrant rights activists have held “know your rights” workshops and had volunteers post about raids and detainments on social media. The efforts of immigrant rights activists to coordinate expressions of protest against ICE highlight the role that social media has played in the anti-ICE movement. “Know Your Rights” posts have become a widespread form of protest against ICE activity and advocacy for immigrant rights.
ICE released a statement heralding the ruling as “a win for the safety of Californians and the rule of law.” The legalization of racial profiling creates the possibility of future chaos in marginalized communities, under issues other than migration. The split in the justices’ opinions on the Court’s past decisions reflects the current state of political polarization, and concerns about how partisanship may influence the interpretation of the law. Public approval of the court has decreased from 70% in August 2020 to 48% as of this September. Statistics show that about 47% of Americans view the Court as conservative. Comparing favorability and political statistics suggests a correlation that indicates the low level of trust the public currently has in the Court. The Court’s decision in the case of Noem v. Perdomo presents the persistent question of who the law is protecting, and the cost to those under the mercy of those who wield it.