English 
Português 
Español 
The case Noem v. Perdomo has reached the United States Supreme Court with the potential to redefine the constitutional limits of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations on streets, bus stops, informal day-labor sites, and parking lots. The dispute originated in Los Angeles, where a federal injunction sharply restricted the use of ethnic, linguistic, and occupational criteria as the sole basis for stops — and the outcome will shape how federal agents conduct these operations nationwide.
The central issue is legal and constitutional: to what extent does the Fourth Amendment allow ICE agents to detain people based on appearance, language, or workplace, without any other individualized indication of immigration irregularity? The Supreme Court’s answer will set the standard applicable to millions of immigrants living or working in the United States under a variety of statuses.
What the district court decided
Federal Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, of the Central District of California, issued in July 2025 a temporary restraining order followed by a preliminary injunction prohibiting ICE from basing investigative detentions solely on four factors: ethnic or racial appearance; use of Spanish or English with an accent; presence at known informal hiring sites or agricultural workplaces; and the type of occupation performed.
The ruling does not ban the use of these factors in combination with other indicators. What it prohibits is using these four characteristics — alone or in combination — as the sole justification for a coercive stop, finding that doing so violates the reasonable suspicion standard required by the Fourth Amendment.
The legal standard at stake
Investigative stops — known as Terry stops, after the precedent Terry v. Ohio (1968) — require the officer to articulate specific facts supporting a reasonable and individualized suspicion of involvement in unlawful conduct. The Supreme Court already established in United States v. Brignoni-Ponce (1975) that Mexican appearance alone is not sufficient basis for an immigration stop, even near the border.
The Los Angeles injunction applies that logic to the interior of the country and to a broader set of factors. The plaintiffs’ argument is that operations conducted on the basis of ethnic and occupational profiling reproduce precisely the practice that Brignoni-Ponce and its successors rejected.
The immediate effect of the injunction
Data monitored after the order took effect showed approximately a 66% drop in ICE detentions in Los Angeles in the period immediately following. The magnitude of the reduction became an argument for both sides: for the government, proof that the ruling paralyzes law enforcement; for the injunction’s supporters, evidence that most prior operations depended precisely on the criteria now restricted.
The greater Los Angeles metropolitan area has more than 20 million residents, with a significant share of immigrants in sectors such as agriculture, construction, hospitality, restaurants, cleaning, and home care. That demographic explains why the operational impact of the precedent is so high.
The appeal to the Supreme Court
The federal government asked the Supreme Court for a stay of the injunction — meaning its suspension while the merits proceed in the lower courts. The central argument is that Judge Frimpong’s order intrudes on the Executive Branch’s exclusive authority to enforce immigration law and imposes restrictions that make ICE operations unworkable in one of the country’s largest metropolitan areas.
The Court requested briefs from the parties, signaling a willingness to decide the case in short order. Decisions of this type at the Supreme Court typically come within weeks or a few months, and the effect is nationwide even when the case originates in a single district.
What changes depending on the outcome
Three scenarios emerge. In the first, the Supreme Court upholds the injunction in full: the restrictive standard operates in Los Angeles and creates persuasive precedent for other districts. In the second, the Court stays the injunction while the merits proceed: ICE resumes operations under previous rules, but the action continues in lower courts. In the third, the Court rules on the merits and establishes a national test: the effect is binding nationwide and could redefine agent training, operational protocols, and individual accountability.
What this means for immigrants
Regardless of the final outcome, the case reinforces that the constitutional rights protected by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments extend to all persons on U.S. soil, with or without lawful immigration status. During an ICE encounter, any person has the right to:
- Remain silent about immigration status, place of birth, or manner of entry into the country.
- Refuse to open the door to their home without a judicial warrant signed by a federal judge — ICE administrative warrants (Form I-200 or I-205) do not authorize forced entry.
- Decline to sign any document without first consulting an attorney.
- Request the presence of an attorney during any questioning.
- Ask for the agent’s identification and the reason for the stop.
At workplaces, employers also have the right to require a judicial warrant for access to private areas and for inspection of employees’ documents, except in specific situations covered by Form I-9.
Why the case goes beyond Los Angeles
The Supreme Court’s decision will serve as a reference for all federal courts facing similar challenges to ICE operations. Even a technical stay, without a ruling on the merits, signals institutional inclination. For the immigrant community, the case is a reminder that the line between legitimate enforcement and unconstitutional practice is drawn in the courts — and that knowing basic rights is the most effective form of protection in an environment of intensified enforcement.
Victoria Harper
Editor-in-Chief
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.
