Execution of Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo Order

By: Cecilia Jacobson
Edited by: Jerry Benedict and Payton Hawkins

On September 8, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a stay of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California’s ruling that prevented immigration agents from policing and detaining individuals based on factors such as race, language, or employment in Los Angeles. [1] Signaling the direction the Supreme Court will take towards immigration enforcement, this ruling is significant in permitting the federal government’s racial discrimination against Latinos. As this order stayed the lower court’s preliminary injunction, the Supreme Court has not yet released a final decision. Still, the stay offers a warning that the court will not uphold strict constitutional limits on ICE's authority. It is vital to recognize that this order does not resolve the constitutional question of whether the use of racialized indicators violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. [2] Still, it allows immigration agents to continue their harmful, violent, and discriminatory practices. [3]

On June 6, 2025, the Trump administration conducted mass ICE raids across Los Angeles, and the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issued a restraining order prohibiting ICE from relying on discriminatory factors, such as race, in determining which individuals or communities to target for enforcement actions. Following this, the Department of Justice sought to appeal the order, arguing that it prevented the DOJ from enforcing federal laws; the Ninth Circuit largely upheld the lower court’s restrictions. [4] Subsequent to these judicial proceedings, the administration petitioned for emergency relief, and the Supreme Court granted a stay pending appeal to restore ICE's enforcement authority in Los Angeles. [5] This stay was issued on the shadow docket, with limited transparency into how the Court reached its decision. What was made public was a non-precedential concurrence authored by Justice Kavanaugh and a dissenting opinion by Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson. 

While the Court offered no majority reasoning, Kavanaugh outlined two key judicial perspectives in defense of the stay. [6] His arguments center on the impropriety of the temporary restraining order under City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, as the plaintiffs would lack standing: what matters is a real threat of repeated injury, not “subjective apprehensions.” [7] This perspective fails to acknowledge the systemic and racialized nature of race-based stops in ICE enforcement. It assumes that the stops are “brief and non-intrusive” and that factors like race and language are “reasonable suspicion” when in reality, this is not the case. This point alludes to the second central argument, in which Kavanaugh cites cases such as United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, which held that race may be a factor in reasonable suspicion, provided it is not the sole factor. [8] In Kavanaugh’s argument, he lists factors such as the prevalence of undocumented immigrants in L.A., their occupations, the language they speak, and where they live that can meet the reasonable suspicion standard . [9] This reasoning reveals a contradiction: Kavanaugh affirms that race cannot be the sole basis for suspicion, yet its relevance creates a standard that removes this rule, leaving racialization to dictate people’s lives in the United States. 

Justice Sotomayor’s dissent begins to acknowledge the realities that Latinos face. She warns that this decision creates “a second-class citizenship status,” where “the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low-wage job.” [10] Sotomayor frequently highlights the “balance of harms and equities”; Kavanaugh argues that there is a legal interest in favor of the Government, as people are “evading” the law, and those who violate immigration laws' interests are not substantial. However, Sotomayor highlights that, to “balance the equities,” the Court must weigh the threat to civil liberties against the government’s discriminatory, speculative enforcement tactic. [11] Soyomayor’s reasoning reveals Kavanaugh’s ignorance of the lived realities of working-class Latinos, the violent enforcement tactics ICE is utilizing, and the way that race and ethnicity inform these lived realities. 

When considering the Court's concurring and dissenting opinions, it is crucial to challenge the notions of reasonable suspicion and common sense. When evaluating the methods of immigration enforcement, it is clear that this “common sense” is flawed due to racial bias that shapes perceptions of “illegality.” This analysis exposes how the demographic and situational realities of Latinos become weaponized to justify profiling, revealing that there is a class bias intertwined with racial profiling. If factors such as race, occupation, and language maintain legal validity, can immigration enforcement ever be extricated from racialization? If not, it is essential to question the legitimacy of our immigration policy and enforcement. Nearly 20% of people in the United States identify as Latino, numbering 68 million in 2024. [12] The Supreme Court’s decision erodes Fourth Amendment protections according to race and poses a risk to a highly prevalent demographic, while ignoring Latinos' multiracial and multiethnic identity. This order does not resolve the constitutional issues, but permits discriminatory practices to continue that undermine equal citizenship. It will create unnecessary hardship for Latinos in their day-to-day lives, from the inability to seek work, pick up their children from school, or leave their house without carrying their passports. By sustaining expansive immigration policing, the Supreme Court’s stay underscores the conflation of Latino identity with immigration status, diminishing their formal legal status. 

Notes: 

1. Michael Vandergriff and Victoria Tan, “Case: Pedro Vasquez Perdomo v. Kristi Noem,” Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, November 22, 2025, https://clearinghouse.net/case/46758/.

2. Kallista Ramirez, “Public Safety or Profiling? Implications of Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem for Immigration Enforcement in the U.S.,” The Fulcrum, November 14, 2025, https://thefulcrum.us/rule-of-law/racial-profiling-and-immigration#:~:text=The%20decision%20temporarily%20lifted%20a,enforcement%20authority%2C%20and%20civil%20liberties.&text=In%20June%202025%2C%20the%20Trump,Type%20of%20work%20one%20does.

3. Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, “How the Supreme Court’s Latest Decision Clears the Way for Racial Profiling during Immigration Raids,” American Immigration Council, September 9, 2025, https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/supreme-courts-decision-racial-profiling-immigration-raids/.

4. Kallista Ramirez, “Public Safety or Profiling? Implications of Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem for Immigration Enforcement in the U.S.,” The Fulcrum, November 14, 2025, https://thefulcrum.us/rule-of-law/racial-profiling-and-immigration#:~:text=The%20decision%20temporarily%20lifted%20a,enforcement%20authority%2C%20and%20civil%20liberties.&text=In%20June%202025%2C%20the%20Trump,Type%20of%20work%20one%20does.

5. Michael Vandergriff and Victoria Tan, “Case: Pedro Vasquez Perdomo v. Kristi Noem,” Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, November 22, 2025, https://clearinghouse.net/case/46758/.

6. Jennifer Chacón. “Whose Common Sense? Some Reflections on Noem v. Vazquez Perdomo,” Stanford Law School, September 24, 2025, https://law.stanford.edu/2025/09/24/whose-common-sense-some-reflections-on-noem-v-vazquez-perdomo/.

7. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983); Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem, No. 25-4312 (9th Cir. 2025).

8. United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975).

9. Vasquez Perdomo, No. 25-4312.

10. Vasquez Perdomo, No. 25-4312.

11. Vasquez Perdomo, No. 25-4312.

12. Gabriel Piña, “Key Facts about U.S. Latinos,” Pew Research Center, October 22, 2025, https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/10/22/key-facts-about-us-latinos/.

Bibliography: 

Chacón, Jennifer. “Whose Common Sense? Some Reflections on Noem v. Vazquez Perdomo.” Stanford Law School, September 24, 2025. https://law.stanford.edu/2025/09/24/whose-common-sense-some-reflections-on-noem-v-vazquez-perdomo/.

City of Los Angeles v. Lyons. 461 U.S. 95 (1983).

Reichlin-Melnick, Aaron. “How the Supreme Court’s Latest Decision Clears the Way for Racial Profiling during Immigration Raids.” American Immigration Council, September 9, 2025. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/supreme-courts-decision-racial-profiling-immigration-raids/.

Piña, Gabriel. “Key Facts about U.S. Latinos.” Pew Research Center, October 22, 2025. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/10/22/key-facts-about-us-latinos/.

Ramirez, Kallista. “Public Safety or Profiling? Implications of Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem for Immigration Enforcement in the U.S.” The Fulcrum, November 14, 2025. https://thefulcrum.us/rule-of-law/racial-profiling-and-immigration#:~:text=The%20decision%20temporarily%20lifted%20a,enforcement%20authority%2C%20and%20civil%20liberties.&text=In%20June%202025%2C%20the%20Trump,Type%20of%20work%20one%20does.

United States v. Brignoni-Ponce. 422 U.S. 873 (1975).

Vandergriff, Michael, and Victoria Tan. “Case: Pedro Vasquez Perdomo v. Kristi Noem.” Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, November 22, 2025. https://clearinghouse.net/case/46758/. 

Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem. No. 25-4312. 9th Cir., 2025.