Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times,
The Supreme Court on Sept. 8 temporarily put on hold a lower court order restricting immigration stops in Southern California.
Three justices dissented from the new order.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) started its operations in the Los Angeles area on June 6.
Local and state officials have strongly criticized the effort, saying the federal government is overstepping its legal authority.
Several illegal immigrant advocacy groups are suing the Trump administration over the enforcement program.
The new high court order pauses a temporary restraining order Judge Maame Frimpong of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issued on July 11 that limits the factors law enforcement officials may use when making immigration-related stops and arrests.
Specifically, Frimpong barred the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from stopping or arresting individuals based exclusively on factors such as the language the person speaks or where the person works.
In the emergency application in Noem v. Perdomo, which was filed Aug. 7, the Supreme Court on Sept. 8 granted the stay pending an appeal that is before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed an opinion concurring in the stay order.
“It should come as no surprise that some Administrations may be more laissez-faire in enforcing immigration law, and other Administrations more strict,” Kavanaugh wrote, noting the Supreme Court denied efforts to compel the Biden administration to take stronger enforcement actions.
“Article III judges may have views on which policy approach is better or fairer,” he wrote. “But judges are not appointed to make those policy calls.”
Kavanaugh’s reasoning is simple and correct.
“By illegally immigrating into and remaining in the country, they are not only violating the immigration laws, but also jumping in front of those noncitizens who follow the rules and wait in line to immigrate into the United States through the legal immigration process.
For those reasons, the interests of illegal immigrants in evading questioning (and thus evading detection of their illegal presence) are not particularly substantial as a legal matter.”
Justices Sonia Sotomayor filed an opinion dissenting from the new order.
The government is “seizing people using firearms, physical violence, and warehouse detentions,” according to Sotomayor.
“Nor are undocumented immigrants the only ones harmed by the Government’s conduct.”
Sotomayor consistently refers to illegal migrants as “undocumented immigrants.” In her hierarchy of concerns, the comfort of illegal migrants appears to rank above the good of American citizens.
“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,” Sotomayor wrote.
“Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent.”
Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson concurred in the dissent.
Sotomayor writes that “Operation At Large,” an immigration enforcement effort, “has sparked ‘panic and fear’ across Los Angeles and its surrounding areas.”
Sotomayor offers quotes from Latino U.S. citizens who are worried they might be wrongfully detained.
Could it be perhaps that Los Angeles and its surrounding areas are swarming with illegal migrants who fear deportation.
Loading recommendations…
