The Supreme Court has reversed a lower court order temporarily halting the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from stopping or arresting people in the Los Angeles area based on their apparent race, language spoken, or accent.
A federal trial court determined that the federal government was stopping individuals based on four factors: 1) their apparent race or ethnicity; (2) whether they spoke Spanish or English with an accent; (3) the type of location at which they were found (such as a car wash or bus stop); and (4) the type of job they appeared to work. The trial court temporarily ordered that the government refrain from continuing such mass arrests until the court could conduct a hearing or trial to determine the merits of the case and whether a more long-term solution may exist.
The administration appealed the ruling up to the Supreme Court, which lifted the order temporarily halting such arrests through emergency “shadow docket.” The Supreme Court normally takes time to determine which cases to hear and to make a ruling. However, the Supreme Court can hear cases on an expedited process in the event of an “emergency,” though the Court’s majority need not issue an actual written opinion. Of the 25 emergency appeals by the federal government this year, the Court has heard 24 of them and sided with the federal government 21 of those 24 times.
The Supreme Court issued a ruling that was about a paragraph long, reversing the trial court’s temporary stay. However, Justice Kavanaugh wrote a concurrence stating that law enforcement is permitted to make stops based on the “totality of the circumstances.” Justice Sotomayor penned a dissenting opinion that stops based on race, language, or accent constituted unreasonable searches under the 4th Amendment.
Should the Supreme Court Restrain the Executive Branch or Itself?
Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence frames the decision as “improperly restricting reasonable Executive Branch enforcement of the immigration laws.” Kavanaugh defends the Supreme Court of bias accusations by pointing out the fact that the Supreme Court didn’t compel the prior administration to enforce immigration law any more than it can compel the current administration from laxing its tough immigration stance.
Kavanaugh’s description is a straw man, though it addresses a larger issue that the Supreme Court has struggled with for most of its existence. The Supreme Court has no way of compelling the political branches to do anything. However, the Supreme Court can declare a certain act, law, or order unconstitutional, and thus lower courts could then restrain the other branches in that manner. Put simply, it is easier for a court to compel someone to stop acting than it is for a court to force someone to act a certain way.
Kavanaugh at least believes that the immigration stops are a question of public policy. Voters elect the President to enforce certain laws, and thus the President should have the discretion to decide what laws to enforce. If the voters don’t like it, they can vote for a different President. If an individual is unjustly stopped, he or she can still argue their position in court despite being placed under arrest at that moment.
Government Action that Takes Race into Account
Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence that “ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion; under this Court’s case law regarding immigration stops, however, it can be a “relevant factor” when considered with other salient factors” presents challenges. Proving discrimination in employment law often involves eliminating other potential motives by the employer. In law enforcement, it is important to carefully consider all relevant factors, ensuring that race or ethnicity is not used as an inappropriate substitute for other evidence.
The 4th Amendment states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The right against unreasonable searches and seizures belongs to “the people,” not just citizens. Immigrants, whether legal or illegal, are protected from unreasonable search and seizures under the plain text of the Amendment.
Do I Need a Criminal Defense Lawyer?
A criminal defense attorney can help you build your case and represent you during all the phases of a murder or manslaughter trial. The emotional benefits include some sense of relief that your attorney is on your side.