Score another Supreme Court victory for President Donald Trump.
The high court on Monday lifted a federal judge’s restraining order that imposed limits on raids aimed at illegal immigrants in Southern California.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh explained the decision as a matter of common sense — despite a hyperventilating dissent by Justice Sonya Sotomayor — but the issue might back before the Supreme Court again before too long.
MAJOR BREAKING: The US Supreme Court has just given President Trump the green light to conduct SWEEPING immigration enforcement in Los Angeles, 6-3
HUGE loss for Gavin Newsom and foreign invaders!
They’re ALL going back! pic.twitter.com/xfNTODh9ax
— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) September 8, 2025
The 6-3 decision featured the familiar lineup of conservative or mostly conservative justices — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas — versus the court’s three-member liberal wing, Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor.
As NBC News reported, the ruling lifted a temporary restraining order imposed by Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, a Biden-appointed judge on the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
That order blocked detention of suspected illegal aliens by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents on reasonable suspicion based on, among other things, working in the kind of jobs that often don’t require legal paperwork, such as car washes and landscaping, and an inability to speak English.
“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.
Do you approve of the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement efforts?
“Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent.”
Kavanaugh, however, pointed out that there’s a good deal more involved than Sotomayor was letting on.
Immigration officers in the raids are operating on “reasonable suspicion,” he wrote, which is a lower standard than “probable cause” needed for an action like an arrest.
Reasonable suspicion in the case of ICE raids, he wrote, is made up of the “totality of the particular circumstances.”
“Here, those circumstances include: that there is an extremely high number and percentage of illegal immigrants in the Los Angeles area; that those individuals tend to gather in certain locations to seek daily work; that those individuals often work in certain kinds of jobs, such as day labor, landscaping, agriculture, and construction, that do not require paperwork and are therefore especially attractive to illegal immigrants; and that many of those illegally in the Los Angeles area come from Mexico or Central America and do not speak much English,” he wrote.
And then he hammered it home:
“Under this Court’s precedents, not to mention common sense, those circumstances taken together can constitute at least reasonable suspicion of illegal presence in the United States. Importantly, reasonable suspicion means only that immigration officers may briefly stop the individual and inquire about immigration status. If the person is a U. S. citizen or otherwise lawfully in the United States, that individual will be free to go after the brief encounter. Only if the person is illegally in the United States may the stop lead to further immigration proceedings.”
In other words, like bank robber Willie Sutton’s famous (unfortunately apocryphal) quote about going to where the money is, immigration officers go to where the illegal immigrants are. If they question an individual who turns out to have every right to be in the United States, either as a citizen or a legal resident, no harm is done.
If the individual turns out to be illegal (and a good many do), then the machine starts to move.
Frimpong’s decision didn’t actually halt ICE patrols in the Los Angeles area, according to the Associated Press, but the patrols were slowed, at least temporarily.
Attorney General Pam Bondi, who has made her own position about California and illegal immigration abundantly clear, declared the Monday ruling to be a victory.
“Now, ICE can continue carrying out roving patrols in California without judicial micromanagement,” she wrote on the social media platform X.
Another massive victory at the Supreme Court from @TheJusticeDept attorneys, this time defending @ICEgov.
In a 6-3 decision, the Court stayed an injunction that attempted to hamper ICE operations across the Los Angeles area. Now, ICE can continue carrying out roving patrols in…
— Attorney General Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi) September 8, 2025
Unsurprisingly, the common-sense decision left liberals fuming. For example, California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s press office used a post on the social media platform X to accuse the Supreme Court of acting as a “Grand Marshal” for “a parade of racial terror in Los Angeles.”
NEW: @CAGovernor Gavin Newsom on today’s Supreme Court ruling:
“Trump’s hand-picked Supreme Court majority just became the Grand Marshal for a parade of racial terror in Los Angeles. This isn’t about enforcing immigration laws — it’s about targeting Latinos and anyone who…
— Governor Newsom Press Office (@GovPressOffice) September 8, 2025
But plenty of other Americans were celebrating.
Perfect!! The Supreme Court’s lift on LA immigration stops empowers law enforcement and strengthens border security!! Finally putting America first!! pic.twitter.com/ScC3baV3eB
— Anna (@realAnn_29) September 8, 2025
As long as Trump keeps winning, I’m very happy indeed.
— Robert Toney (@RobertJoeToney) September 8, 2025
The Monday decision is the latest win for the Trump administration in the Supreme Court. While some conservatives are understandably unhappy with specific high court decisions, the Trump administration’s overall record since January has been positive.
On issues from cleaning up illegal immigration to laying off government workers and making clear the court was losing patience with district court judges issuing “nationwide injunctions” against Trump administration moves, the Supreme Court has proven to have a majority of justices who consider Trump’s approach constitutionally sound.
However, as National Review commentator Andrew McCarthy noted, the issue is not completely resolved.
The Supreme Court’s move only lifts Frimpong’s order until the case can be argued in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
That same court declined to stay Frimpong’s order earlier, according to the Supreme Court-watching SCOTUSblog, which is why the case went to the Supreme Court in the first place.
And if it goes back to the high court again, Trump will need another win.
The smart money will bet that he gets it.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
