US Supreme court allows anti-immigrant raids
The US Supreme Court temporarily lifted restrictions on federal immigration raids in Los Angeles, a decision seen as a victory for the Trump administration and a setback for immigrant rights advocates.
The ruling, backed by the six conservative justices, overturned a lower court order that had blocked Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from carrying out arrests based on ethnicity, language, occupation, or location, such as bus stops or workplaces.
Trump’s former immigration enforcement chief, Tom Homan, hailed the ruling as “an excellent decision,” insisting that ICE does not engage in racial profiling.
California’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, strongly condemned the decision, warning that it paves the way for “a parade of racial terror in Los Angeles” and accusing the court of granting a license to “target Latinos.”
The case originated after several Latino residents, including three immigrants detained at a bus stop and two US citizens of Hispanic origin, filed complaints alleging unconstitutional arrests. Civil rights groups such as the ACLU supported their claims, and a federal judge initially sided with them, citing the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
However, the Supreme Court’s decision clears the way for ICE to intensify operations in Los Angeles, where undocumented immigrants are estimated to represent nearly 10% of the population. Justice Brett Kavanaugh highlighted this fact in his opinion, calling undocumented migration “particularly pronounced” in the region.
Reactions have been swift. Pedro Vasquez Perdomo, one of the plaintiffs, denounced the ruling as “racism with a badge.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Court’s first Latina member, warned that the decision risks creating “a second-class citizenship status” in the United States.
The Department of Homeland Security announced on social media that ICE would “continue flooding the Los Angeles area.” The case is set to return to court on September 24, when judges could decide whether to impose longer-term restrictions.
-
19:15
-
19:00
-
18:42
-
18:25
-
18:15
-
18:10
-
17:47
-
17:32
-
17:15
-
16:50
-
16:32
-
16:16
-
15:56
-
15:40
-
15:20
-
15:05
-
14:45
-
14:30
-
14:15
-
14:00
-
13:42
-
13:25
-
13:10
-
12:47
-
12:31
-
12:15
-
12:00
-
11:42
-
11:25
-
11:11
-
10:47
-
10:32
-
10:15
-
10:09
-
10:00
-
09:45
-
09:30
-
09:15
-
09:00
-
08:45
-
08:30
-
08:15
-
23:57
-
23:40
-
23:30
-
23:25
-
23:10
-
23:00
-
22:45
-
22:30
-
22:15
-
22:00
-
21:45
-
21:30
-
21:20
-
21:15
-
21:10
-
21:00
-
20:45
-
20:39
-
20:30
-
20:20
-
20:15
-
20:00
-
19:50
-
19:45
-
19:40
-
19:30
-
19:20
