Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court pauses lower court ruling that limited Trump's immigration crackdown in LA
Not The Bee ^ | September 08, 2025 | Davy Crockett

Posted on 09/08/2025 9:51:52 AM PDT by Red Badger

🚨 In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court pauses a lower court ruling that had prohibited the Trump administration from conducting roving immigration arrests across Los Angeles. pic.twitter.com/s1KMwyZW2D— Greg Price (@greg_price11) September 8, 2025

The activist judge who ruled that Immigration and Customs Enforcement was not allowed to fully enforce immigration law just got the Supreme Court smackdown of a lifetime.

From the LA Times:

The Supreme Court ruled Monday for the Trump administration and agreed U.S. immigration agents may stop and detain anyone they suspect is in the U.S. illegally based on little more than working at a car wash, speaking Spanish or having brown skin.

By a 6-3 margin, the justices granted an emergency appeal and lifted a Los Angeles judge's order that barred 'roving patrols' from snatching people off Southern California streets based on how they look, what language they speak, what work they do or where they happen to be.

The biased LA Times for you! ICE is allowed to detain suspected criminal aliens and it's suddenly a scandal.

More from the LA Times:

In a concurring opinion, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said federal law says 'immigration officers "may briefly detain" an individual "for questioning" if they have "a reasonable suspicion, based on specific articulable facts, that the person being questioned ... is an alien illegally in the United States." Immigration stops based on reasonable suspicion of illegal presence have been an important component of U. S. immigration enforcement for decades, across several presidential administrations,' he said.

The three far lefties dissented from the opinion, all 6 of the moderate and conservative judges ruled in favor of the Trump administration.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: aliens; california; judgewatch; lawfare; losangeles; raids; scotus; supremes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

1 posted on 09/08/2025 9:51:52 AM PDT by Red Badger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

SCOTUS Opinion here:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/25a169_5h25.pdf

Dissent by usual suspects here:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/25a169_5h25.pdf#page=11


2 posted on 09/08/2025 9:57:00 AM PDT by CFW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Half surprised coney Barrett went along


3 posted on 09/08/2025 9:58:00 AM PDT by V_TWIN (America...so great even the people that hate it refuse to leave!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: V_TWIN

I’m thinking she is finally waking up to being conned by the Left.
Time will tell


4 posted on 09/08/2025 10:03:45 AM PDT by Zathras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
The crucial point should be:
"Would an ordinary American citizen (maybe one with a pale complexion, blond hair, and working at, say, a bank) feel unduly accosted or inconvenienced if he were stopped and asked about his American citizenship?"
I wouldn't - and I couldn't be mistaken for your stereotypical Mexican at even a hundred paces!

Regards,

5 posted on 09/08/2025 10:04:46 AM PDT by alexander_busek (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

6 posted on 09/08/2025 10:07:45 AM PDT by PROCON (Sic Semper Tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zathras
I’m thinking she is finally waking up to being conned by the Left.

Maybe she just thinks that is the correct interpretation, irrespective of her opinion.

Here's a thought exercise: Can you name a Supreme Court decision that you thought was rightly decided that you intensely dislike the consequences of?

I came up with one. Lawyer advertising used to be heavily regulated, practically disallowed outside of a shingle and an entry in the Yellow Pages. SCOTUS ruled that was a violation of the 1st Amendment. The result has been disastrous. Yet, once you accept the incorporation doctrine, that the Bill of Rights is binding on the several States, too, I think it was he "correct" decision from a legal standpoint.
7 posted on 09/08/2025 10:13:57 AM PDT by Dr. Sivana ("Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye." (John 2:5))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
barred 'roving patrols' from snatching people off Southern California streets

That is the Left's spin. They make it sound like some Latin American or East European secret police operation. Pull up, throw someone in a van and they're never heard from again.

8 posted on 09/08/2025 10:14:25 AM PDT by Opinionated Blowhard (When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: V_TWIN

Me too. It is too early to tell but l was concerned she would be way too illegal friendly.


9 posted on 09/08/2025 10:18:41 AM PDT by iamgalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana
It's a really really good Opinion. If you have time, read at least the first couple pages. Here is a couple of bits of "common sense'.

Here, those circumstances include: that there is an extremely high number and percentage of illegal immigrants in the Los Angeles area; that those individuals tend to gather in certain locations to seek daily work; that those individuals often work in certain kinds of jobs, such as day labor, landscaping, agriculture, and construction, that do not require paperwork and are therefore especially attractive to illegal immigrants; and that many of those illegally in the Los Angeles area come from Mexico or Central America and do not speak much English. Cf. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S., at 884–885 (listing “[a]ny number of factors” that contribute to reasonable suspicion of illegal presence). To be clear, 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. Id., at 887.

Under this Court’s precedents, not to mention common sense, those circumstances taken together can constitute at least reasonable suspicion of illegal presence in the United States. Importantly, reasonable suspicion means only that immigration officers may briefly stop the individual and inquire about immigration status. If the person is a U. S. citizen or otherwise lawfully in the United States, that individual will be free to go after the brief encounter. Only if the person is illegally in the United States may the stop lead to further immigration proceedings."

10 posted on 09/08/2025 10:20:39 AM PDT by CFW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Opinionated Blowhard

I worked with a Druze. That’s an Arab looking non-Muslim. He looked Arabic enough to pass himself off as a Sunni (Or, Shia, I don’t recall.) when it was needed to save his life. He was really upset that he got the full TSA treatment on his most recent flight. I suggested that perhaps TSA should just give everyone who looked like him an automatic pass because otherwise it would be racist. There was a long, pause. He said something along the lines of, “Okay, I see your point.” Because if there was someone who hated and distrusted Arabs, it was him.


11 posted on 09/08/2025 10:26:59 AM PDT by Gen.Blather (Wait! I said that out loud. Sorry. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana

Lawyers and drug companies advertising has been a bane on society for at least 20 years.


12 posted on 09/08/2025 10:28:19 AM PDT by packrat35 (Pureblood! No clot shot for me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
6-3

Wouldn't it be great if that was 7-2 or 8-1 by January 2029!

13 posted on 09/08/2025 10:33:32 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Import The Third World,Become The Third World)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: packrat35
Lawyers and drug companies advertising has been a bane on society for at least 20 years.

I am of the opinion that the 1st Amendment would NOT cover prescription drug advertising, as it is illegal to make the purchase without the Rx, and 1st Amendment would not promotions to weaken the safeguards of the Rx system.


14 posted on 09/08/2025 10:37:25 AM PDT by Dr. Sivana ("Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye." (John 2:5))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: CFW
Sotomayor's dissent, as a I suspected, follows the district court's attempt to use ethnicity as a shield against law enforcement.

According to the left, law enforcement is prohibited from acting against Latino and black criminals because it might be "racial profiling" to notice that the vast majority of illegal aliens are Latinos and the vast majority of crimes in urban areas are committed by blacks.

15 posted on 09/08/2025 10:39:55 AM PDT by pierrem15 ("Massacrez-les, car le seigneur connait les siens" )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana

I rarely see commercials but those two are the ones that piss off almost everyone. They are on so much that its grates on you...


16 posted on 09/08/2025 10:50:40 AM PDT by packrat35 (Pureblood! No clot shot for me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana

It is a good example. The consequences have been disastrous but technically correct. Reminds me of the 19thA catastrophic and inevitable.


17 posted on 09/08/2025 10:55:49 AM PDT by iamgalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: pierrem15

Sotomayor’s dissent, as a I suspected, follows the district court’s attempt to use ethnicity as a shield against law enforcement.


Yep. Enforcing the law against them is racist.


18 posted on 09/08/2025 11:07:50 AM PDT by CFW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
(conducting roving immigration arrests across Los Angeles.)

All involved in #1 and #2 should have been
arrested and charged with Domestic Terrorism.

#3 we know how that turned out...


1st is Los Angeles, 2025.
2nd is Wisconsin, 2020.
3rd is Kristallnacht, 1938.





19 posted on 09/08/2025 11:25:54 AM PDT by SaveFerris (Luke 17:28 ... as it was in the Days of Lot; They did Eat, They Drank, They Bought, They Sold ......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: iamgalt

Kavanaugh used his 10-page concurrence to launch into a broader discussion about the debate around illegal immigration.

“To be sure, I recognize and fully appreciate that many (not all, but many) illegal immigrants come to the United States to escape poverty and the lack of freedom and opportunities in their home countries,” he wrote.

“But the fact remains that, under the laws passed by Congress and the president, they are acting illegally by remaining in the United States – at least unless Congress and the president choose some other legislative approach to legalize some or all of those individuals now illegally present in the country,” he added.


20 posted on 09/08/2025 11:32:52 AM PDT by CFW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson