Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem: The Supreme Court and Race-Based Detentions

By: Camilo Ayadi
Edited by: Jack Pacconi and Brooke Ebner

We’ve all seen the viral videos of unidentified Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents throwing people into the back of vans with what seems to be an absence of empathy for those arrested. [1] These short clips offer the public a view of the morally reprehensible behavior of border police since the Trump administration took office. But how did we get here? How have courts responded? And how can the public push back against ICE’s rights violations?

ICE in Los Angeles

Once the Trump administration took office in January 2025, ICE immediately increased its number of arrests. In fact, ICE itself reports a 70% increase in the detainee population since Trump took office. [2] This alone troubles more than half of migrants living in the United States right now; however, a deeper look into the data suggests an even more grave trend. [3] A study from the UCLA Center for Neighborhood Knowledge found that arrests of Latinos nearly doubled since Trump took office. Now, nine in every 10 ICE arrests are of Latino origin. Furthermore, this sharp increase in arrests isn’t equally distributed throughout the U.S. The concentration of arrests in states with high Latino populations suggests intentional targeting of the Latino community. [4]

Initial Complaint 

It is this ethnicized targeting of the Latino population that prompted Los Angeles  lawyers to file suit against the Department of Homeland Security, headed by Kristi Noem. The plaintiffs—three individuals and two membership associations—alleged ICE officials had “an ongoing policy … of conducting detentive stops in [the Central District of California] without reasonable suspicion that the person to be stopped is within the United States in violation of U.S. immigration law, in contravention of the Fourth Amendment.” [5] Filed in the U.S. District Court of the Central District of California, the complaint compiles the experience of both individuals and large organizations harassed by ICE. The goal was to establish a pattern of illegal behavior,stopping individuals without proper cause,perpetrated by ICE. In one instance, Plaintiff Jason Brian Gavidia was at work when he was spontaneously approached by ICE agents asking him “what hospital he was born in.” [6] After Gavida explained he didn’t know, he was thrown against a wall, detained, and held for over 20 minutes without his phone or Real ID—the latter of which was never returned. [7] Both the United Farm Workers of America and the Los Angeles Worker Center Network point to dozens of instances in which places of work predominantly staffed by Latino workers were raided suddenly and without cause, often by unmarked and unidentifiable ICE agents. Finally, the complaint alleges that the federal government blocked detainees’ counsel from accessing a downtown Los Angeles detention center, a violation of their right to an attorney. At large, ICE’s actions in Los Angeles violated the plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure, their Fifth Amendment right against being held without indictment, and their Sixth Amendment right to access legal counsel.

This disregard for the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment gave the District Court a fairly easy job, and, on July 11, 2025, the court granted Plaintiffs’ Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). [8] The order mandated the federal government to stop making arrests solely based on four enumerated factors: race, inability to speak English, occupation, and presence at a location. The order also required the government to allow detainees held in that L.A. detention center access to their attorneys seven days a week. [9] This TRO, however, was not even close to the end of this case; in fact, it is only the start.

The Ninth Circuit’s Ruling

On August 1, 2025, the federal government appealed the District Court’s order in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The government also filed a stay application against the TRO. If granted, this stay would allow the government to continue its behavior until the case is fully adjudicated. In the stay application, the federal government makes no attempt to dispute the racial and ethnicized targeting of arrests, nor does it dispute “that sole reliance on the four enumerated factors, alone or in combination” is not constitutional. [10] The government makes two arguments. First, it argues that future harm against the plaintiffs is not “real and immediate” enough to warrant injunctive relief. Second, the government argues that the TRO’s order is "impermissibly vague” and inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment. [11] 

On the question of future harm against the plaintiffs, the court rejects the government's argument in whole. The ruling first finds that the government has engaged in “a pattern of officially sanctioned behavior, [in] violat[ion] of the plaintiffs’ federal rights.” [12] The Court notes occasions on which individuals were unconstitutionally held multiple times, delivering a second blow to this “future harm” argument. The Court expressed some sympathy with the government and agreed to stay the portion of the TRO reading “except as permitted by law,” because it fails to outline “what is permitted by law.” [13] However, the Court denies any other claim of inconsistency with the Fourth Amendment. The Court refers to precedent in United States v. Brignoni-Ponce that makes it clear “to form reasonable suspicion, an officer must rely on facts and inferences specific enough that they do not describe ‘[l]arge numbers’” or “a broad profile.” [14]  Hence, the TRO bars ICE officers from making arrests based solely on factors that would describe a “broad profile,” ensuring that rights violations do not continue. [15]

Overall, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling was a big win for Plaintiffs. Unfortunately, that win was short lived as on September 8 2025, the out-of-session Supreme Court weighed in on the case. But to understand the ruling, one first must understand the procedural loophole the court used to make a ruling in the first place.

The Supreme Court’s Shadow Ruling

The Supreme Court normally operates on what’s known as the “merits docket.” Here, the nine justices read briefs, participate in oral arguments, and write opinions answering the nation’s most complex and pressing legal questions. The ruling they make then becomes the law of the land and serves as precedent that lower courts can then use to interpret the law. More recently, however, the court has been, with increasing frequency, issuing “emergency rulings” outside the confines of the merits docket. If a majority of the court finds a question to be of such pressing matter that it cannot wait to be heard on the merits docket, the court can issue a ruling without explanation or oral argumentation temporarily before the case is heard. The current conservative majority on the court has used the shadow docket more than ever before; the majority of cases taken involve Trump administration actions. [16] In fact, the Trump administration filed the same number of emergency applications in the first 20 weeks of its term as former President Joe Biden’s entire four-year term. The Court’s ruling in Noem v. Vasquez-Perdomo is just one of the over 20 emergency rulings issued by the court over the last nine months. [17]

The September Supreme Court ruling accepted the government’s stay application of the California District Court’s TRO, reversing the Ninth Circuit’s decision. [18] Although a written opinion was not required, Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh provided what we can only assume to be the Court’s reasoning for granting the stay. Kavanaugh’s opinion begins by describing the recent uptick in immigration to Los Angeles as “extraordinary,” justifying why ICE has vastly increased its presence there. [19] He then addresses two of the government's arguments made in its initial stay application: future harm and Fourth Amendment compliance.

The core of Kavanaugh’s argument in the “future harm” claim revolves around City of Los Angeles v. Lyons. [20] In Lyons, the Supreme Court held that injunctive relief may only be granted based on the likely “reality of future harm” to the plaintiff. Kavanaugh argues that it is unlikely the plaintiffs will be stopped solely based on the factors prohibited in the TRO again, and therefore finds they lack the Article III standing necessary for injunctive relief. [21] By denying standing, the Court essentially finds that no legal remedy exists to address the complaint and therefore dismisses the case. 

Kavanaugh then responds to the government's Fourth Amendment compliance argument. He first writes that reasonable suspicion relies on a “totality of circumstances” present when an officer is making a detention, citing United States v. Brignoni-Ponce. He posits that the presence of illegal immigrants in Los Angeles and their tendency to have Spanish accents or work in labor are “circumstances” that justify ICE agents stopping people based on those characteristics. As long as the four characteristics listed in the TRO are not the only factors an officer uses when making a detention, they can be “relevant” in an officer's decisions to arrest and investigate someone about their immigration status. [22]

Scholars’ Dissent

Legal scholars from across the nation have expressed their discontent with Kavanaugh’s opinion.  Starting with Kavanaugh's Article III standing argument. First, it is prudent to point out that interpretations of Lyons have been mixed, and courts often have difficulty pinning down what the standard in Lyons even is. Nevertheless, Kavanaugh’s invocation of Lyons likely goes too far, as in Lyons, plaintiffs sought injunctive relief due to an incident w:here the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD)detained an individual via chokehold. The plaintiffs in Lyons failed to prove that this behavior was likely to continue, and the TRO in question was subsequently lifted. [23] However, unlike the isolated incident in Lyons, the ICE arrests cited in Vasquez-Perdomo are still ongoing and frequent. Moreover, these detentions are not the result of individual behavior; rather, they represent direction from the organization itself. There are, at the very least, inconsistencies between cases that make the direct comparison hard to swallow.

There are also objections to Kavanaugh's use of Brignoni-Ponce. In his opinion, Kavanaugh invokes “common sense” as reasoning for “Mexican ancestry” to be a factor in finding probable cause for a detention; however, this presents  two problems. First, Kavanaugh's interpretation would mean “many individuals who do not belong to the target group will be wrapped up in the enforcement effort and, as a result, have their legal rights violated.” Second, it means that at any point, law enforcement can decide that a particular protected class of people is “more likely” to have committed some crime and detain them arbitrarily. If taken at face value, Kavanaugh’s argument could turn anyone into a potential suspect. [24]

What Lies Ahead

Where do we go from here? Perhaps examining the underlying intentions of the court will provide an answer. In 2015, U.S. Senator from Rhode Island and former Rhode Island Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse published an article entitled “Conservative Judicial Activism: The Politicization of the Supreme Court Under Chief Justice Roberts.” The article serves as a detailed account of what Whitehouse describes as the Roberts Courts’ propensity for “extreme judicial activism.” [25] Recounting multiple decades worth of jurisprudence, Whitehouse concludes that the republican appointed majority on the court is no longer guided by legal principles and values, but rather by what he describes as a “pro-cooperate agenda.” [26] He furthers that “the clear beneficiaries of this agenda are corporate and conservative interests” who are now favored at the expense of “employees, consumers, communities, and other injured Americans, who can no longer count on the highest court in the land to vindicate their rights.” [27]

This trend has held up, most recently in the challenges to Trump’s populist anti-cooperate economic policy, namely tariffs. In a November 2025 oral argument, the Court gestured that it would likely rule Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act unconstitutional. [28] If they do, it would be one of their first major rulings against the Trump administration. 

All that being said, perhaps the most viable strategy to protect the rights of non-citizens, or people who appear to be non-citizens, is to tie their interests to those of corporate America. Whether it be democratization in Spain, or civil rights in the south, boycotts, strikes, and labor unrest have historically been staple drivers for political change. Economic protest with key policy action in mind—a reversal of ICE’s inhumane policy towards immigrant communities, and a path to citizenship for those already in the US—could be demonstrably effective in  compelling this Supreme Court to put its activism to good use.

Notes:

1. Velshi, Ali, “Videos of Violent ICE Interactions Flood Social Media” MS Now. MSNBC, October 13, 2025, https://www.ms.now/top-stories/latest/ice-agents-violent-video-arrests-trump-immigration-crackdown-rcna237373.

2. Montoya-Galvez, Camilo, “ICE's detainee population reaches 66,000, a new record high, statistics show,” CBS News, November 6, 2025, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ices-detainee-population-reaches-66000-a-new-record-high-statistics-show/. 

3. Schumacher et al., “KFF/New York Times 2025 Survey of Immigrants: Worries and Experiences Amid Increased Immigration Enforcement”, KFF, November 18, 2025, https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/kff-new-york-times-2025-survey-of-immigrants-worries-and-experiences-amid-increased-immigration-enforcement/. 

4. Ong, Jonathan et al., “UNSEEN: Latino ICE Arrests Surge Under Trump,” UCLA Center for Neighborhood Knowledge, UCLA, October 2025: 1

5. Tolchin et al., Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause re: Preliminary Injunction, Case No. 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP, U.S. Dist. Ct., C.D. Cal., filed July 3, 2025: i

6. Tolchin et al: 7-8

7. Tolchin et al: 7-8

8. Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem, No. 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP (C.D. Cal. July 11, 2025), Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Regarding Preliminary Injunction, 2025 WL 1915964

9. Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem (C. D. Cal.) 50-51

10. Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem, No. 25-4312 (9th Cir. Aug. 1, 2025), https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/08/01/25-4312.pdf: 24

11. Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem, (9th Cir. Aug. 1): 26

12. Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem (9th Cir. Aug. 1): 29

13. Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem (9th Cir. Aug. 1): 4

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

15. Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem (9th Cir. Aug. 1): 5

16. Vladeck, Stephen I., The Supreme Court's (Self-Defeating) Supremacy (October 25, 2025), 2025 Sup. Ct. Rev., (forthcoming): 3

17. Chung, Andrew, “Trump finds victories at the Supreme Court in rush of emergency cases” Reuters, June 13, 2025, https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-finds-victories-supreme-court-rush-emergency-cases-2025-06-13/.

18. Noem v. Vasquez-Perdomo, 606 U.S. ___ (2025) (Kavanaugh, J. concurring): 1

19. Noem v. Vasquez-Perdomo, 606 U.S: 2

20. L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U. S. 95 (1983)

21. Noem v. Vasquez-Perdomo, 606 U.S. ___ (2025): 4-5

22. Noem v. Vasquez-Perdomo, 606 U.S.: 5-7

23. Lyons, 461 U. S. 95 (1983)

24. Brett, Sharon, Lyons, Remedies, and the Fourth Amendment in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo (September 12, 2025), forthcoming in 100 N.Y.U. Law Review Online __ (January 2026)

25. Whitehouse, Sheldon, "Conservative Judicial Activism:The Politicization of the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Roberts," Harvard Law & Policy Review 9 (2015): 196

26. Whitehouse, Sheldon, "Conservative Judicial Activism:The Politicization of the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Roberts," Harvard Law & Policy Review 9 (2015): 208

27. Whitehouse, Sheldon, "Conservative Judicial Activism:The Politicization of the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Roberts," Harvard Law & Policy Review 9 (2015): 208

28. Zurcher, Anthony, “Justices Sharply Question Trump Tariffs in Supreme Court Hearing” November 5, 2025, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gp3nj5nj3o.
    

Bibliography:

ACLU of Southern California. “Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem.” ACLU, July 2, 2025. https://www.aclusocal.org/en/cases/vasquez-perdomo-v-noem.

Montoya-Galvez, Camilo. “ICE’s Detainee Population Reaches 66,000, a New Record High, Statistics Show.” CBS News. CBS, November 6, 2025. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ices-detainee-population-reaches-66000-a-new-record-high-statistics-show/

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

Cuauhtémoc García Hernández, César. “Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Racial Proxies.” SCOTUSblog. SCOTUSblog, September 23, 2025. https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/09/justice-brett-kavanaugh-and-racial-proxies/.

Lacarte, Valerie, and Muzzaffar Chishti. “U.S. Immigrant Detention Grows to Record Heights under Trump Administration.” Migrant Policy Institute, October 23, 2025. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/trump-immigrant-detention.

Lat, David . “Emergency, Shadow... Or Half-Enchilada Docket? The Results.” Original Jurisdiction . Substack, August 13, 2025. https://davidlat.substack.com/p/poll-results-supreme-court-scotus-emergency-shadow-preliminary-interim-relief-short-order-docket.

Law Offices of Stacy Tolchin et al., Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause re: Preliminary Injunction, Case No. 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP, United States District Court for the Central District of California, filed July 3, 2025. https://www.aclusocal.org/sites/default/files/2025.07.03_-_dkt_45_-_ex_parte_application_for_tro.pdf.

Liptak, Adam, Abbie VanSickle, and Alicia Parlapiano. “A Triumphant Supreme Court Term for Trump, Fueled by Emergency Rulings.” The New York Times, June 28, 2025. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/28/us/supreme-court-trump-victories.html.

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

Siegel, Avi. “Balancing in the Shadows of Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, by Avi Siegal - Yale Journal on Regulation.” Yale Journal on Regulation. Yale Law School, September 24, 2025. https://www.yalejreg.com/nc/balancing-in-the-shadows-of-noem-v-vasquez-perdomo-by-avi-siegal/.

Totenberg, Nina. “The Supreme Court and ‘the Shadow Docket.’” NPR. NPR, May 22, 2023. https://www.npr.org/2023/05/22/1177228505/supreme-court-shadow-docket.

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

Vasquez-Perdomo v. Noem, 606 U.S. ___ (2025)

Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem, No. 25-4312 (9th Cir. Aug. 1, 2025). https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/08/01/25-4312.pdf.

Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem, No. 2:25-cv-05605-MEMF-SP (C.D. Cal. July 11, 2025). Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Regarding Preliminary Injunction. 2025 WL 1915964.

Vladeck, Stephen I. “The Supreme Court’s (Self-Defeating) Supremacy,” 2025. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5661011.

Wise, Justin. “ICE Apprehension of US Citizens Derided as ‘Kavanaugh Stops.’” Bloomberg Law. Bloomberg, October 21, 2025. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/ice-apprehension-of-us-citizens-derided-as-kavanaugh-stops.

Zurcher, Anthony. “Justices Sharply Question Trump Tariffs in Supreme Court Hearing.” BBC News. November 5, 2025. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gp3nj5nj3o.