Noem v. Perdomo: ICE, Raids in LA, and Your Rights

The Noem v. Perdomo case has become one of the most closely watched immigration enforcement lawsuits in the United States in recent months. Originating in Los Angeles, the case examines the extent to which Immigration and Customs Enforcement — ICE — may use characteristics such as ethnic appearance, spoken language, workplace, or type of occupation as a trigger for stops and arrests. The controversy directly engages the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and carries concrete implications for millions of people who live or work in the United States.

Origins of the Lawsuit in Los Angeles

Federal Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, of the Central District of California, issued a preliminary injunction barring federal immigration officers in and around Los Angeles from making investigative arrests based exclusively on four factors: apparent membership in a particular ethnic or racial group; speaking Spanish or English with an accent; presence at agricultural worksites or informal day-labor sites; and the type of work performed by the person being stopped.

The ruling did not prohibit the use of these factors in combination with other indicators. What the judge barred was their use in isolation as the sole basis for a stop, arrest, or detention, finding that such a practice would violate Fourth Amendment standards on reasonable suspicion and probable cause.

Immediate Operational Impact

After the injunction took effect, data introduced in the proceedings showed a sharp drop in the volume of ICE arrests in the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area — a reduction of roughly 66% compared to the period before the order. That figure fueled public debate in two directions. Civil rights advocates argued that the decline confirmed that a substantial share of prior stops had rested on racial or linguistic profiling rather than concrete evidence of an immigration violation. The federal government, in turn, maintained that the injunction gutted the agency’s operational capacity in one of the nation’s largest metropolitan areas, home to more than 20 million residents.

Escalation to the Supreme Court

Dissatisfied with the ruling, the Department of Justice asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the injunction while the merits of the case continued through the lower courts. In a September 2025 decision, the Supreme Court granted the government’s stay request by a six-to-three vote, allowing ICE to resume operational practices that had been restricted by Judge Frimpong’s order. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, each expressing concern about the use of factors such as accent or appearance as bases for suspicion.

The Supreme Court’s decision was procedural in nature: it addressed the interim injunctive relief, not the constitutional merits of the stops themselves. The litigation continues in the lower courts, and the broader question of the Fourth Amendment’s limits in immigration enforcement operations remains unresolved.

What the Fourth Amendment Requires

Supreme Court precedent has long required that investigative stops be grounded in articulable reasonable suspicion — based on specific, objective facts rather than generalizations. In United States v. Brignoni-Ponce (1975), the Court held that Mexican appearance, standing alone, does not constitute reasonable suspicion for an immigration stop. Noem v. Perdomo applies that same logic to a contemporary urban context and an expanded set of triggering factors.

Rights During an ICE Encounter

Regardless of how the case ultimately resolves, certain rights apply to every person on U.S. soil — with or without lawful immigration status.

• Right to remain silent: No one is required to answer questions about nationality, place of birth, or immigration status. You may calmly state that you are exercising your right to remain silent.
• Right to refuse a search without a warrant: Officers may not enter a residence without a warrant signed by a judge. Administrative ICE warrants (Form I-200 or I-205) do not, by themselves, authorize forced entry into a home.
• Right to an attorney: Upon any detention, you may request an attorney and refuse to sign documents — especially forms such as the I-826 — without consulting one first, as signing may constitute a waiver of your right to a hearing before an immigration judge.
• Documentation: Carry proof of lawful status if you have it, and never present false documents. Lying about citizenship can carry permanent immigration consequences.

Most Exposed Sectors

Workers in agriculture, construction, food service, cleaning, and domestic care have historically made up a significant share of the immigrant workforce in the United States. Operations at informal hiring sites — known as day-labor sites — and at locations with a predominantly immigrant workforce were at the center of this debate. The discussion over which factors may not be used as the sole basis for a stop has direct, practical consequences for these communities.

What to Watch in the Coming Months

Even with the stay granted by the Supreme Court, the merits of Noem v. Perdomo remain before the Ninth Circuit and may return to the high court at a later stage. Decisions in related cases, regulatory changes by the Department of Homeland Security, and potential executive orders could all shift the landscape. For anyone living or working in the United States without a defined immigration status, staying informed about basic rights and seeking qualified legal counsel before any extended interaction with federal agents remains the most prudent course of action.

The case illustrates the constant tension between enforcement interests and the constitutional guarantees that protect every inhabitant of U.S. territory, regardless of citizenship. Clear, legally grounded information is a layer of protection that does not depend on immigration status.

Victoria Harper

Editor-in-Chief

Meet the author

Leading journalism and editorial content at Visto n’ Visa, Victoria helps make immigration topics clear, trustworthy, and easy to understand. Her focus is on delivering useful, human, and relevant content for people exploring new paths abroad.