Supreme Court Grants Stay, Immigration Raids Resume in Los Angeles Area

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday granted the federal government’s request to pause a lower court order that had blocked immigration raids in the Los Angeles region, clearing the way for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to resume brief immigration-status stops.

The order came in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo and stays a July 11 injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong. That injunction had restricted immigration officers from making investigative stops based on factors such as language, occupation, or ethnicity.

With the stay in place, federal immigration authorities may once again question individuals in Los Angeles County and surrounding areas under the existing legal standard of “reasonable suspicion.”

What the Stay Means

The Supreme Court’s unsigned order does not resolve the constitutional dispute. Instead, it temporarily suspends the district court’s injunction while the case proceeds before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

If the Ninth Circuit rules and either party appeals, the stay will remain in effect until the Supreme Court decides whether to take the case. Should the Court decline review, the stay ends automatically. If review is granted, the stay will last until the justices issue their final judgment.

Kavanaugh’s Concurrence

Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed a separate concurring opinion that outlined the Court’s reasoning and previewed the path ahead.

He emphasized that immigration officers are authorized under federal law to interrogate individuals they reasonably suspect of being in the country illegally. Officers may conduct brief stops based on “specific, articulable facts” under the reasonable suspicion standard, which is lower than probable cause.

Kavanaugh noted that factors such as gathering at day-laborer sites, working in jobs that often lack paperwork, speaking little or no English, and apparent ethnicity may be considered together in forming reasonable suspicion. He stressed, however, that ethnicity alone cannot justify a stop.

The concurrence also addressed plaintiffs’ legal standing, with Kavanaugh saying that they cannot seek a broad injunction based only on past experiences or fear of recurrence. He further clarified that excessive use of force by officers remains governed by the Fourth Amendment and was not at issue in this case. Excessive use of force remains prohibited for ICE just as it is prohibited for all other law enforcement and should be recorded if witnessed. Kavanaugh also underscored that attempts to avoid questioning by immigration officers are not a protected right but amount to unlawful evasion of enforcement. He wrote that “the interests of individuals who are illegally in the country in avoiding being stopped by law enforcement for questioning is ultimately an interest in evading the law,” adding that such an interest is “not an especially weighty legal interest.” His concurrence suggests that even refusing to respond when officers knock on a car window may be viewed as evasion rather than a lawful exercise of personal choice.

Importantly, Kavanaugh signaled that the Supreme Court would hear the case if the Ninth Circuit upholds the district court’s injunction and the government appeals.

Impact on Whittier

The ruling means ICE raids and investigative stops can resume across Los Angeles County, including Whittier. While the constitutional issues remain unresolved, the Court’s order ensures enforcement will continue in the meantime.

Locally, the decision is expected to intensify political debate. In July, the Whittier City Council voted 4–1 to direct staff to study possible responses to community concerns over immigration raids. With federal enforcement now back in motion, the issue is likely to return to the forefront of local council meetings and campaign discussions.