A Supreme Court Tilt Toward Executive Power: What Los Angeles ICE Raids Reveal
Voices raised for justice: Protesters rally against ICE in San Francisco, February 28, 2018. Source: Creative Commons.
On September 6th, the United States Supreme Court voted 6-3 to lift a lower court’s order that blocked immigration raids in Los Angeles, California, while legal challenges continue. The Court’s ruling in Noem v. Vasquez-Perdomo was heralded by the Trump Administration but taken as a profound blow by civil liberty advocates. By allowing ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents to stop individuals based on factors such as language, race, occupation, or location, the Court has effectively sanctioned racial profiling under the guise of “reasonable suspicion.” Even though the case remains unresolved, this choice has already sent signs of a dangerous trajectory, one where executive power is prioritized over constitutional protections, with vulnerable communities paying the price.
This ruling is not about ensuring operational flexibility in immigration enforcement. Instead, it is about dismantling safeguards against discrimination, safeguards that enable this country to be the melting pot of the world. What makes this especially troubling is that the Court issued its decision through the “shadow docket,” a term used to describe emergency orders and summary decisions made without the full process of briefing and oral arguments. Although the shadow docket was created for urgent, time-sensitive cases, it is now frequently used to settle significant policy disputes without the openness and discussion of the Court's normal procedure. By granting such sweeping authority in this manner, the Court all but guarantees that today’s problem will grow into tomorrow’s crisis. Emergency orders of this magnitude carry immense consequences for the lives of ordinary people, yet the majority offered little rationale for their decision. Millions of people are unsure of the extent of their constitutional rights as a result of this lack of transparency, which also erodes public confidence in the federal judiciary.
The Vazquez-Pedermo decision also highlights the increasing entrenchment of the Court’s conservative alliance. All six conservative justices voted to lift the injunction, with the Court’s liberals, Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, sounding the alarm in dissent. Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurrence was particularly alarming. He acknowledged that language or race by themselves cannot support a stop, but he maintained that they can still raise suspicion when paired with other factors. Because of this flawed logic, a new legal framework is established that permits systemic bias to pass as legitimate legal judgment.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s vote with the majority further dispels the notion that she represents a swing vote on this Court. Although some commentators initially speculated that she might occasionally align with the liberal justices on contentious issues, her record has instead revealed steady alignment with the conservative bloc. This case underscores not only the dominance but also the cohesion of the Court’s conservative wing, leaving little room for meaningful judicial checks on executive overreach. The illusion of ideological balance has been replaced by the reality of a Court whose decisions increasingly reflect political leanings rather than the impartiality it was designed to embody.
The broader implications are alarming, not just for immigrants but for what it means to be an American. For decades, congressional gridlock has left immigration policy adrift, creating a vacuum that empowered presidents to dictate enforcement. One powerful example is President Obama’s creation of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) in 2012, which offered temporary protection from deportation and work permits to certain undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children. DACA illustrates how the lack of legislative action has driven the executive branch to expand its authority over immigration policy. This expansion is now being echoed in the present case. By rubber-stamping this aggressive use of executive power, the Court has reinforced an already dangerous imbalance. The United States created the idea of checks and balances as well as three coequal branches of government to ensure no one branch has too much power, and now we are seeing firsthand what happens when power consolidates around one branch.
The repercussions are chilling and immediate for immigrant communities. Families in Los Angeles now live in constant fear of being singled out for harassment because they speak Spanish in public, work in day labor markets, or just happen to live in a particular neighborhood. This is not the protection of public safety, but it is the legitimization of fear as a tool of governance. State officials in California have rightly condemned the ruling, warning it could normalize profiling nationwide. The real threat lies in how these raids pave the way for future administrations to justify broader intrusions on individual rights under the banner of executive power. This case closely mirrors American policy during the Second World War, when the U.S. government detained Japanese Americans in internment camps under the pretext of national security, simply because they or their ancestors came from a nation with which the United States was at war.
America’s immigration story has always been complex, but what is clear now is that the Court’s ruling risks entrenching executive power at the expense of constitutional protections. As Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo moves forward, the question is not only about immigration enforcement, but whether the judiciary will defend civil liberties or continue to retreat from them.