On Monday, September 8, 2025, the United States Supreme Court paused a temporary restraining order restricting immigration stops in Los Angeles and central California.
U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong previously issued the temporary restraining order, which bars federal agents from making immigration stops unless reasonable suspicion exists that the stopped person is in the United States illegally. Judge Frimpong’s order states that federal agents may not base their reasonable suspicion upon solely “traits like race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or accented English, where a person happens to be, and the type of work a person does.” The Trump administration filed an application with the Supreme Court to stay the order on Thursday, August 7, 2025.
The Supreme Court’s opinion stays Judge Frimpong’s order “pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought.” If certiorari is denied, the stay will terminate automatically. If certiorari is granted, the stay will terminate after the Supreme Court sends down its judgment.
Justice Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion states that “the Government has made a sufficient showing [of irreparable harm if a stay were not granted] to obtain a stay pending appeal.” Justice Kavanaugh stated that the Supreme Court would likely grant certiorari if the Court of Appeals affirmed the temporary restraining order. Justice Kavanaugh continued on that, alternatively, “the Government has demonstrated a fair prospect of reversal of the District Court’s injunction” based on standing and Fourth Amendment grounds. “To conclude otherwise, this Court would likely have to overrule or significantly narrow to separate lines of precedents.”
Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, and Justice Jackson dissented the ruling. Justice Sotomayor’s dissent criticizes the manner in which the Supreme Court’s emergency docket is used: “Instead of allowing the District Court to consider these troubling allegations in the normal course, a majority of this Court decides to take the once-extraordinary step of staying the District Court’s order.” Justice Sotomayor continued on to state that “[w]e should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job. Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent.”
Additional Reading
Supreme Court allows federal officers to more freely make immigration stops in LA, SCOTUSblog (September 8, 2025)
Docket in Kristi Noem, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, et al. v. Pedro Vasquez Perdomo, et al., Supreme Court of the United States
Opinion in Kristi Noem, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, et al. v. Pedro Vasquez Perdomo, et al.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Order in Pedro Vasquez Perdomo et al. v. Kristi Noem, et al. (9th Cir. 2025)
Groups Challenge Trump Administration’s Request to Block Ruling Halting Immigration Stops, Justia Legal News (August 13, 2025)
Photo Credit: Christopher Penler / Shutterstock.com