The U.S. Supreme Court has abruptly lifted restrictions that limited the Trump administration’s ability to conduct immigration-related home raids in the Los Angeles area based on broad indicators such as speaking Spanish or congregating at locations associated with day laborers. In what critics are calling a major shift in enforcement latitude, the justices stayed a federal court ruling that had barred so-called “roving” sweeps by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

The case centers on a decision by U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, who had ruled that ICE’s use of generalized criteria—like language, appearance, and place of gathering—was likely unconstitutional. The judge’s injunction prevented agents from conducting stops at spray-wash locations, bus stops, or big-box store parking lots when little else suggested illegal status. She held that these criteria amounted to unlawful stereotyping rather than sound law enforcement.

But in a 6–3 decision along ideological lines, the Supreme Court agreed to put that injunction on hold while underlying appeals proceed. The majority provided no public rationale for accepting the Trump administration’s emergency petition to invalidate Frimpong’s restrictions, though the stay takes effect immediately, restoring broader ICE powers in the region.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, while concurring with the stay, offered his own rationale: he argued in favor of brief investigative interviews with individuals who meet what he termed “common-sense” indicators of unlawful presence—factors such as working in day labor, construction, or having limited English. In his view, such criteria are appropriate starting points for questioning.

This view was strongly rebuked by the three liberal justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—in a dissent joined by all three. “We 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,” Justice Sotomayor wrote. She warned that the decision erodes constitutional protections and precedent, and said the majority’s move undermines fundamental civil liberties.

The Trump administration described Frimpong’s ruling as a “straitjacket” that unduly hampered the enforcement of mass-deportation policies. In its emergency appeal filings, the Justice Department argued that the injunction had left ICE officers with overly narrow guidance that undermined operational flexibility.

Judge Frimpong had issued her ruling in July, after scrutinizing ICE’s enforcement strategies in the Los Angeles region. She found that agents were conducting “roving patrols”—random, mobile stops in areas where low-income or immigrant communities might be found—without reasonable suspicion that subjects were illegally present in the country. The judge noted that color of skin, accent, language, or place of work were being used as proxies for immigration status, something she deemed impermissible.

When asked to stay her ruling, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined. A three-judge panel rejected the emergency request from the Trump administration, making only minor adjustments to the original injunction. The appellate judges expressed concern over reports that the White House had adopted a daily arrest target of 3,000 immigrants, which some feared could pressure agents into sweeping arrests without sufficient cause. Although the Justice Department has denied the existence of such a quota, public comments by former White House adviser Stephen Miller had earlier fueled speculation.

Frimpong’s injunction was viewed as a turning point in the fight over how aggressively immigration laws are enforced in urban areas. The decision constrained ICE’s ability to act on broad profiles and mood-target communities rather than specific suspects.

At the same time, a separate legal battle looms over the deployment of military forces in Los Angeles, which Trump ordered, against the wishes of California Governor Gavin Newsom. While one federal judge dismissed aspects of the deployment as unlawful, the Ninth Circuit has paused that ruling pending further review, adding another layer of tension to the region’s immigration enforcement battleground.

To compound the administration’s legal momentum, the Supreme Court also granted another win to President Trump on a separate front. In that matter, the Court approved an order allowing the removal of Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The administration had asked for an emergency injunction to halt lower court rulings that had protected Slaughter’s position, and to settle the constitutional question of whether the president can fire officials at independent agencies.

In its filings, the Justice Department argued that over time the FTC’s authority had dramatically expanded beyond its original 1935 mandate and that the president should have the power to remove commissioners at will. With the Supreme Court’s nod, Trump’s push to flex executive control over independent regulatory bodies took a key step forward.

Together, the immigration ruling and the decision on the FTC signal a broader thrust by the Court toward enhancing executive authority. As both cases proceed on appeal, they will likely test the limits of civil liberties and the separation of powers in deeply contentious areas of law enforcement and regulatory oversight.