The Supreme Court just sided with Donald Trump and it could make being a Latino in Los Angeles an ‘intrusion on their liberty’

The Supreme Court just granted an emergency request from the Trump administration, effectively lifting a federal judge’s ruling that restricted federal officers from conducting immigration stops in the Los Angeles area. This decision puts on hold the July 11 ruling by U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, which was a response to extensive sweeps by federal agents in the Los Angeles region.

The move has drawn strong criticism from liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was joined by the two other liberal justices in her dissent.

The original lawsuit was brought by groups like the United Farm Workers and the Los Angeles Worker Center Network, along with several individual plaintiffs, some of whom are U.S. citizens who were detained and questioned by immigration agents, according to NBC.

They argued that the government’s tactics violated the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures and requires law enforcement to have “reasonable suspicion” before stopping anyone. The lawsuit claimed that agents were stopping people purely based on their race, ethnicity, or the fact that they speak Spanish, per NBC. This is what led Judge Frimpong to rule that immigration agents couldn’t stop people based solely on those factors, their place of work, or where they congregate.

ICE can once again freely discriminate and racially profile you

In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor, the first Hispanic justice on the Supreme Court, didn’t hold back. She wrote, “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. Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent.” Sotomayor added that after this decision, it may no longer be true that the Fourth Amendment protects everyone. She said, “After today, that may no longer be true for those who happen to look a certain way, speak a certain way, and appear to work a certain type of legitimate job that pays very little.”

She even said that the ruling was “unconscionably irreconcilable with our nation’s constitutional guarantees.” Lawyers for the plaintiffs in the case echoed this sentiment, arguing that the policy has subjected “U.S. citizens and others who are lawfully present in this country” to “significant intrusions on their liberty.”

The Supreme Court’s brief order didn’t offer a reason for the decision, but Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a separate opinion where he cast doubt on whether a constitutional violation had occurred. He argued that because Los Angeles has a large population of undocumented immigrants, and they “tend to gather in certain locations to seek daily work,” it would likely give law enforcement “reasonable suspicion” to stop people in many circumstances. Kavanaugh also stressed that the judiciary’s role isn’t to set immigration policy.

On the other hand, Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the Trump administration, argued that Judge Frimpong’s ruling was overly broad and misinterpreted the Fourth Amendment’s requirements. He claimed the ruling threatened “to upend immigration officials’ ability to enforce the immigration laws” in the Los Angeles region. While he acknowledged that speaking Spanish or working in construction alone doesn’t create reasonable suspicion, he stated that such factors “can heighten the likelihood that someone is unlawfully present in the United States.”