An overview of how ICE determines who should be investigated. On September 8, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the case of Noem v. Vazquez Perdomo. The vote was, of course, a perennial 6 to 3, lifting a lower court's injunction against federal law enforcement officers. The previous lower court had ruled that federal immigration agents (ICE) could not stop individuals in Los Angeles during "mobile patrols" solely based on skin color, accent, work location (such as construction sites or car washes), or specific languages (such as Spanish). The Supreme Court's ruling overturned this restriction, allowing agents to continue using these methods for stops and investigations during the appeal process. Although this is currently a "procedural stay," the ruling is significant as it not only expands executive power but also reintroduces racial profiling in law enforcement. Conservative opinion: Justice Kavanaugh, in his concurring opinion, noted that while "race alone" is insufficient to constitute reasonable suspicion, these factors (such as work environment and language) can be relevant in assessing "reasonable suspicion" in specific contexts. He argued that the lower court's injunction was overly broad and interfered with legitimate immigration enforcement. Liberal opinion: Justice Sotomayor, in her dissent, harshly criticized the move, arguing that it effectively legalizes racial profiling, which could lead to thousands of lawful residents and citizens being harassed solely based on their appearance or language. ACLU: This is a significant blow to the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (which protects citizens from unreasonable searches) and the Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection clause). #ICE