On Sept. 9, the country watched as the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) issued an “emergency stay order” ruling on the case of Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, asking whether a lower court’s decision to halt current immigration detention strategies should be reversed or not. As the ruling was published for the world to see, the reactions were clear: advocates for stronger enforcement on the border sighed with relief while advocates against it were outraged.
In a clear 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of the Secretary of Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Kristi Noem, while ruling against advocate and petitioner Pedro Vasquez Perdomo. The question that was brought to the SCOTUS asked: Could a district court temporarily halt the actions of mass detainees of alleged unconstitutional violations? The SCOTUS ruled no, overturning district and appellate decisions to halt the administration’s actions. Despite the highest court of the land’s ruling, this question still remains one of the most controversial within the status quo—with the case still open. While the ruling from SCOTUS in the case of Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo is not final, it will set the precedent for many immigration enforcement decisions to come.
How it started
As the Trump administration settled into office after inauguration in January, the DHS released figures claiming that 15.8 million undocumented immigrants entered the United States without proper entry; the highest number within the past decade. In an effort to reduce these numbers, enforcement officials made decisions that revamped their border security, leading to a claimed dramatic decrease in undocumented immigrants. But, one of the most important decisions by the administration derives from May of 2025 where the Trump administration ordered a quota for immigration enforcement officials to detain at least 3,000 people per day, maintaining the administration’s position on strengthening border security. During the execution of this quota, immigration agencies such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) maintained joint operations to meet its quota, with both agencies arresting approximately 15,000 alleged undocumented immigrants within the last two months of both July and August.
Strong immigration enforcement advocates argue that this is a necessary step towards keeping the United States’ integrity intact through stronger border enforcement. They hold that undocumented immigrants should be held accountable under the “Improper Entry” statute (see 8 U.S. Code § 1325). Under this law, no one can cross the border into the United States unless they go through a Port of Entry and have legal documentation to prove citizenship. However, opponents against mass detainment of undocumented immigrants claim that these arrests are unconstitutional. The problem, as it seemed, is not arresting undocumented immigrants. The problem is that those detained by border enforcement were not entitled to rights guaranteed in the Constitution.
Specifically, when executing actions to try and meet the desired quota of undocumented immigrants, there were many constitutional concerns among those who question the way immigration enforcement is today. Most notably, on June 6, federal agents in Southern California began raids in an operation called “Operation at Large”, where they were allegedly “breaking into homes, workplaces and even schools,” with immigration enforcement officials accused of numerous constitutional violations performing “suspicionless stops, racial profiling and detention without access to counsel,” violating both the fourth amendment (i.e. unreasonable search and seizure) and the fifth amendment (i.e. due process and self-incrimination). The alleged claims are but not limited to: Wrongful arrests, holding the alleged without giving bathroom breaks or proper meals and most importantly, no fair trial. This is where the problem begins.
Eventually, on June 20, five individual workers, three membership organizations and a legal services provider—The Los Angeles Worker Center Network, United Farm Workers (UFW), the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA) and Immigration Defenders Law Center—filed a lawsuit which became Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, suing the DHS for failing to uphold the rights of detainees guaranteed in the Constitution. The name of the suit, Vasquez Perdomo, comes from 54 year old Pedro Vasquez Perdomo, who was wrongly detained by ICE agents on June 18 at a bus stop, claiming in a statement that he was “never shown a warrant” and was jailed “without a lawyer”. This lawsuit was first filed in the U.S. District Court of Central California (a.k.a. First Street Courthouse).
The District Court Decision
After the filing of the lawsuit, motions were filed at the First Street Courthouse in which District Judge Maawi Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, appointed by former President Joe Biden and confirmed by the Senate in December 2021, was assigned to preside over. Oral arguments were supposed to be held on Aug. 21, the following month after the district court accepted the case in July. However, Judge Frimpong in an official ruling on July 11 claimed that no oral argument needed to be held and that the actions of immigration enforcement officials were deemed unconstitutional.
During the days following the ruling, Judge Frimpong asked herself three questions that influenced her decision (albeit she asked four, but questions referenced below were influential):
“Do all individuals—regardless of immigration status—share in the rights guaranteed by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments?”
Frimpong answered yes.
“Is it illegal to conduct roving patrols which identify people based upon race alone, aggressively question them, and then detain them without a warrant, without their consent, and without reasonable suspicion that they are without status?”
Frimpong also answered yes.
“Is it unlawful to prevent people from having access to lawyers who can help them in immigration court?”
Frimpong, once again, answered yes.
Frimpong continues by claiming that there was a “mountain of evidence” that undocumented immigrants were being detained without probable cause. She further mentioned evidence by citing arrests in cities such as Los Angeles and six other counties in the state of California, outlining how most of the detainees were being held wrongly and were not guaranteed their rights.
Therefore, the district judge ruled the DHS’ actions as unconstitutional and established a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in the Central District of California, ordering that immigration enforcement officials must halt “conducting detention stops” unless an agent has “reasonable suspicion.” In her ruling, she sets specific guidelines in which agents cannot solely utilize the “four factors” of detention: “apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a particular location and the type of work one does.” The rule adds that all detainees must be guaranteed a lawyer, along with federal agents having access to detention buildings—something that immigration enforcement officers allegedly deny giving.
Reactions were widespread throughout the country. Supporters of this ruling such as California Governor, Gavin Newsom, expressed his celebration on X (formerly known as Twitter) by mentioning how it would set a precedent for immigration policies. “Justice prevailed today. The court’s decision put a temporary stop to federal immigration officials violating people’s rights and racial profiling,” the governor said on the app. “California stands with the law and the Constitution—and we call on the Trump administration to do the same.”
Despite the celebration, dissenters of the ruling became telling. DHS Assistant Secretary, Tricia McLaughlin, expressed concern of how progress on tackling illegal immigration is being blocked. She claimed that this decision harmed the security and integrity of the bureaucracy.
“A district judge is undermining the will of the American people,” the Assistant Secretary said. “America’s brave men and women are removing murderers, MS-13 gang members, pedophiles, rapists—truly the worst of the worst. Law and order will prevail.”
Upset at the ruling, Noem’s counsel appealed the district court’s decision immediately as an emergency motion, and the case was taken up to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States (a.k.a the Ninth Circuit).
The Appellate Court Ruling
After the emergency motion was filed, the Ninth Circuit oversaw the evidence before a panel of three judges consisting of Judges Ronald M. Gould, Marsha S. Berzon and Jennifer Sung. The three judges were tasked with answering if the appellant (i.e. Noem) could prove that the TRO could be appealed. A simple task for the judges, yet a controversial one.
The Ninth Circuit held a virtual oral argument over Zoom on July 28 for approximately ninety minutes. The appellant who represented Noem was Attorney Jacob Roth, who opened the proceedings arguing that district courts had no jurisdiction over preliminary injunctions, citing cases such as Lyons v. Los Angeles (1983), a ruling which denied district courts in granting injunctive relief on broader terms, claimed vagueness in the language of the district court’s ruling and asserted how not any “named plaintiff faced a real immediate threat of a suspicionless stop.” Representing Vasquez Perdomo was Attorney Mohammad Tajsar who addressed the court after, where he referred back to the Fourth Amendment and cited cases which discussed how “reasonable suspicion cannot be based on broad profiles,” (i.e. including the four factors).
In a 61-page ruling, the Ninth Circuit upheld Frimpong’s decision and disagreed with Noem completely. They cited that “reasonable search and seizure is objective” and ruled that the “four factors” are “broad profiles” that cannot be taken solely. Noem had lost.
Once again, reactions were mixed. Tajsar expressed in a statement that this decision was a victory for equality and for all immigrants residing in the United States.
“We look forward to holding the federal government accountable for these authoritarian horrors it unleashed in Southern California, and we invite every person of conscience to join us in defending the integrity and freedom of communities of color across the country,” Tajsar said.
Deputy General Counsel of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), Chris Hajec, claimed that this decision undermined the Fourth Amendment, and that any officer can stop someone for “reasonable cause” especially under “broad profiles.”
“The Fourth Amendment requires that brief investigative stops be reasonable, that and no more,” Hajec said. “It certainly does not require that officers abandon their common sense.”
Now knowing that Noem had lost her case once more, she then filed an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Supreme Court Ruling
On Aug. 7, the Supreme Court of the United States received the application to start proceedings of the stay motion. As an emergency motion, the justices within SCOTUS must make a decision as soon as possible solely on documents submitted by counsel and previous courts. No oral argument was held.
In the 158-page document submitted by Solicitor General John Sauer, Noem argued that the District Court—although claimed to have stayed within their jurisdiction of power—influenced and went beyond their jurisdiction affecting where the TRO should stand. Noem cites how in the Central District where the First Courthouse has jurisdiction over, the “number of people illegally present and subject to removal starts at a 1 in 10 probability,” (approximately 2 million undocumented immigrants) claiming how common sense calls for reasonable suspicion to have a “low threshold” due to the high number. Noem also asserts that Frimpong overstepped her ruling stating that “Just because the four factors may not supply reasonable suspicion in some circumstances, [it] does not mean they will never do so,” citing cases such as Manzo-Jurado v. U.S. (2006) where the Ninth Circuit gave “little weight” to the factors given in this case.
In response, Pedro Vasquez submitted a 41-page document on Aug. 12 where they extended the Fourth Amendment and held that the preliminary injunctions are within the powers of the District Courts. They cited cases such as Trump v. CASA (2025) and how district court injunctions were necessary within protecting constitutional rights. A few hours later, twenty-two cities in Southern California affected by the TRO filed a 16-page brief amicus curiae (a submitted third-party representative in a case) in strong support of Pedro Vasquez, utilizing the same arguments of constitutionality and injunction juris independence. They also emphasize the stories of those who were illegally obtained, citing instances of ICE agents “rounding up people in public spaces like ‘Home Depot’ and ‘7-Eleven,’” along with taking away their constitutional liberties and rights simultaneously.
The Supreme Court of the United States accepted the case, and began deliberation. With nine justices reading hundreds of pages of documents, they formed a final ruling two weeks later.
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court overturned the rulings of the district and appellate courts on the stay, striking down the TRO. This means that the TRO is not in effect anymore, but not the case per se.
Ruled in Favor:
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
Justice Samuel A. Alito
Justice Neil M. Gorsuch
Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh
Justice Amy C. Barrett
Justice Clarence Thomas
Ruled Against:
Justice Sonia Sotomayor
Justice Elena Kagan
Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the majority opinion, representing the opinions of the other five justices who voted to rule in favor of the appeal. In a 10-page document, Kavanaugh recognized that many undocumented immigrants who come to the United States arrive with aspirations and dreams, but also asserts that they must be subject to the law and held accountable. On the question of “reasonable suspicion”, the justice explained that it is a “lesser requirement than probable cause and ‘considerably short.’” see Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo 606 U.S. 5 (2025) (Kavanaugh, B., concurring). On the discussion of jobs, Kavanaugh stated that it is a reasonable way to detain the undocumented by claiming that “Certain kinds of jobs such as day labor, landscaping, agriculture and construction that do not require legal paperwork and are therefore attracting illegal immigrants,” see Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo 606 U.S. 5 (2025) (Kavanaugh, B., concurring). He, however, claims that the four factors are not exclusive.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor writes the dissenting opinion. Sotomayor, in a 21-page opinion, asserted how the “four factors” are not enough for probable cause, referring back to the plaintiffs that Vasquez Perdomo aforementioned. She adds that “it is the government’s burden to prove that it has reasonable suspicion to stop someone,” and that “countless people have been grabbed, thrown to the ground, and handcuffed simply on their looks, their accents and the fact that they make a living by doing manual labor.” see Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo 606 U.S. 20 (2025) (Sotomayor, S., dissenting). She concluded in her opinion: “The Fourth Amendment protects every individual’s right to be ‘free from arbitrary interference by law officers,’” claiming that it “is unconsciously irreconcilable with our Nation’s constitutional guarantees.” see Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo 606 U.S. 21 (2025) (Sotomayor, S., dissenting)
This ruling garnered reactions from both sides across the country. Mayor of Los Angeles, Karen Bass, expressed her concern with the majority opinion.
“I want the entire nation to hear me when I say this is not just an attack on the people of Los Angeles, this is an attack on every person in every city in this country,” she said in a statement.
McLaughlin also weighed on the ruling by supporting the Supreme Court’s decision, saying that this was a major court victory of judicial review in the United States, simultaneously attacking Bass’ inaction on upholding the law in her own city.
“D.H.S. law enforcement will not be slowed down and will continue to arrest and remove the murderers, rapists, gang members and other criminal illegal aliens that Karen Bass continues to give safe harbor,” McLaughlin said.
What this means for San Diego
Within the past few months of the current administration, there was a dramatic increase in arrests by 400% in a report by NBC7 in July. With an estimated 150,000-175,000 undocumented immigrants residing in San Diego as of 2025, it is no wonder why immigration enforcement has increased greatly within the county. BVH Junior Michael Finch explained how this decision allows for the disadvantaged to be pushed into a cycle of discrimination.
“With the current administration’s actions, I fear that this is only the beginning of civil rights being taken away from the people,” Finch said. “I cannot help but feel sad as I know that it will hurt minorities more than ever.”
Finch was not the only one who felt this sentiment. Senior Nicolas Wise believes that this ruling gave too much power to the federal government and follows that this decision will hurt more people in the near future.
“This ruling breaches our rights [to] privacy. [It] sets a precedent where other human rights are even more at risk, hurting and discriminating against others just by the way they were born and the way they act,” Wise said.
With both Finch and Wise agreeing that the Supreme Court’s ruling was unprecedented, both also see eye-to-eye on the regress the United States is taking. Throughout U.S. history, the country has fought to garner civil rights for all those who live in the States. But, Finch believes that the stay motion being granted reverses these efforts.
“It feels like this is a big step back in rights, as if we are reverting back to the 1960’s,” Finch said. “I hope that more will be done to stop more attempts to take our rights away in the future, [and not for] anyone to legally be discriminated against just because of their identity.”
The Future
As the United States steps into a future of the unknown, it is apparent that while the Supreme Court’s ruling does not set a full precedent for this specific case, the decision told Americans how they will handle immigration enforcement in the future. Will this open the floodgates for immigrants to be solely profiled on the four factors in future cases? As per the Supreme Court decision, as of now.
Within the next few years of the actions of immigration enforcement, it will be hard for anti-immigration enforcement activists to argue in Court on cases of profiling. But as the United States prepares for strong enforcement on undocumented immigration, many rise to fight the administration with others in support of it. In the end, this decision has changed the way America will look at immigration as this ruling will impact many others for years to come.
