U.S. Supreme Court Allows Racial Targeting ICE Raids to Continue in LA(reuters.com)
reuters.com
U.S. Supreme Court Allows Racial Targeting ICE Raids to Continue in LA
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-backs-trump-aggressive-immigration-raids-2025-09-08/
25 コメント
I think the dissent said it pretty well:
> A Federal District Court found that these raids were part of a pattern of conduct by the Government that likely violated the Fourth Amendment. Based on the evidence before it, the court held that the Government was stopping individuals based solely on four factors: (1) their apparent race or ethnicity; (2) whether they spoke Spanish or English with an accent; (3) the type of location at which they were found (such as a car wash or bus stop); and (4) the type of job they appeared to work. Concluding that stops based on these four factors alone, even when taken together, could not satisfy the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of reasonable suspicion, the District Court temporarily enjoined the Government from continuing its pattern of unlawful mass arrests while it considered whether longer-term relief was appropriate.
> Instead of allowing the District Court to consider these troubling allegations in the normal course, a majority of this Court decides to take the once-extraordinary step of staying the District Court’s order. That decision is yet another grave misuse of our emergency docket. 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.
> A Federal District Court found that these raids were part of a pattern of conduct by the Government that likely violated the Fourth Amendment. Based on the evidence before it, the court held that the Government was stopping individuals based solely on four factors: (1) their apparent race or ethnicity; (2) whether they spoke Spanish or English with an accent; (3) the type of location at which they were found (such as a car wash or bus stop); and (4) the type of job they appeared to work. Concluding that stops based on these four factors alone, even when taken together, could not satisfy the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of reasonable suspicion, the District Court temporarily enjoined the Government from continuing its pattern of unlawful mass arrests while it considered whether longer-term relief was appropriate.
> Instead of allowing the District Court to consider these troubling allegations in the normal course, a majority of this Court decides to take the once-extraordinary step of staying the District Court’s order. That decision is yet another grave misuse of our emergency docket. 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.
I feel like scotus dissents in this day and age need to be a lot more approachable for the average person. And I like this dissent for being short and to the point. I think oftentimes the dissents can get in the weeds of legal discussions, and this just needs to be as simple as "this law says this is illegal in plain text."
From there, it's on the media to pick up on the plain text of the dissent and actually talk about it for longer, because the majority opinions are like, splitting hairs.
From there, it's on the media to pick up on the plain text of the dissent and actually talk about it for longer, because the majority opinions are like, splitting hairs.
java-man(1)
Re “US Supreme Court Allows Racial Targeting…”
This is not the title of the article
This is not the title of the article
Thank you. Flagged; will unflag once fixed.
From the HN guidelines: “…please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.”
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
From the HN guidelines: “…please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.”
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Flagging will just bury this story not lead to a title change. I think dang has to do that not even the OP.
> Flagging will just bury this story not lead to a title change
Better buried than said dishonestly.
Better buried than said dishonestly.
Nothing about the title is dishonest. They are literally letting them target based on race.
> They are literally letting them target based on race
Not really. SCOTUS lifted a district court's stay.
Trump wanted that. SCOTUS gave in. The district court now goes back to figuring out what's going on, except with the stay lifted instead of in place. "Allow" is too permissive a term because nothing was sanctioned and eventual challenges based on racial profiling have not been precluded; that's why Reuters didn't use the term.
From a Reddit standard of discussion, "allow" works. If you have any knowledge of our legal system, it misrepresents the opinions.
Not really. SCOTUS lifted a district court's stay.
Trump wanted that. SCOTUS gave in. The district court now goes back to figuring out what's going on, except with the stay lifted instead of in place. "Allow" is too permissive a term because nothing was sanctioned and eventual challenges based on racial profiling have not been precluded; that's why Reuters didn't use the term.
From a Reddit standard of discussion, "allow" works. If you have any knowledge of our legal system, it misrepresents the opinions.
BBC: "Supreme Court lifts limits on LA immigration raids"
PBS: "Supreme Court ends restrictions on LA immigration stops set after agents swept up U.S. citizens"
Politico: "Supreme Court lifts restrictions on ‘roving’ ICE raids in Los Angeles"
WaPo: "Supreme Court lifts limits on immigration raids in the Los Angeles area"
And in practice:
ABC: "Immigrants in Southern California go on high alert after Supreme Court ruling
If you have any knowledge of what is happening on the ground, it fully represents the consequence of the opinions:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/08/us/politics/supreme-court...
PBS: "Supreme Court ends restrictions on LA immigration stops set after agents swept up U.S. citizens"
Politico: "Supreme Court lifts restrictions on ‘roving’ ICE raids in Los Angeles"
WaPo: "Supreme Court lifts limits on immigration raids in the Los Angeles area"
And in practice:
ABC: "Immigrants in Southern California go on high alert after Supreme Court ruling
If you have any knowledge of what is happening on the ground, it fully represents the consequence of the opinions:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/08/us/politics/supreme-court...
All of those headlines are accurate. (Some, more to the point than this article's.) "Allows racial targeting" is not.
You are nitpicking. The Supreme Court is allowing racial targeting right now. It is happening, right now. People are being roughhandled, thrown to the ground, handcuffed right now. People are going missing from their families right now, for the "crime" of having non-white skin, speaking Spanish and working menial jobs.
The fact that they will make a decision a posteriori about it (in, what, several months? Maybe? There isn't any deadline after the Sept. 24th hearing) doesn't change the fact racial profiling is happening at this very hour because the Supreme Court took the action to go against a lower court that stopped it. You are splitting hairs and playing with words from the comfort of your comfortable armchair, free from any personal concern, with no skin in the game, because "ooooh, someone may misunderstand the Supreme Court's decision scope and breadth, we can't allow that to happen".
The fact that they will make a decision a posteriori about it (in, what, several months? Maybe? There isn't any deadline after the Sept. 24th hearing) doesn't change the fact racial profiling is happening at this very hour because the Supreme Court took the action to go against a lower court that stopped it. You are splitting hairs and playing with words from the comfort of your comfortable armchair, free from any personal concern, with no skin in the game, because "ooooh, someone may misunderstand the Supreme Court's decision scope and breadth, we can't allow that to happen".
So they allowed it. And it will continue to happen. They could have stopped it but chose not to.
So no, it isn’t dishonest as this is materially the consequence of their decision. Hypothetical future challenges are not real.
So no, it isn’t dishonest as this is materially the consequence of their decision. Hypothetical future challenges are not real.
> they allowed it
No, within the context of the Supreme Court they didn’t allow it any more than that one district court ruling stopped it. It’s this sort of misinterpretation of what lifting a stay really means for folks on the ground that poisons a lot of lay discussion.
No, within the context of the Supreme Court they didn’t allow it any more than that one district court ruling stopped it. It’s this sort of misinterpretation of what lifting a stay really means for folks on the ground that poisons a lot of lay discussion.
The district court did stop it. The material reality is that yesterday the government could not implement this policy and tomorrow they can.
> district court did stop it
Do we have a source for behavior having changed on the ground?
My understanding is it hadn’t during the appeals process.
Do we have a source for behavior having changed on the ground?
My understanding is it hadn’t during the appeals process.
It’s actually much more accurate and helpful than the one in the article which is itself editorialised. This just states the main outcome neutrally.
[deleted]
But it is the content of the article, and of the decision.
You would not play on words, if you were "colored".
You would not play on words, if you were "colored".
Title as of 1339 EST on TFA: US Supreme Court backs Trump on aggressive immigration raids
Title here: U.S. Supreme Court Allows Racial Targeting ICE Raids to Continue in LA
Title here: U.S. Supreme Court Allows Racial Targeting ICE Raids to Continue in LA
I think pretty telling is the court's need to constantly address itself and it's legitimacy in these documents lately.
I'm kind of on a divided opinion on this. This is clearly wrong and bad for America. But it's what the law says, the legislature isn't going to change it, and it's what America voted for. There are deep flaws in our democracy at a structural, legal level and I cannot reasonably expect the Judicial branch to go outside of their lane and solve them anymore than I think a couple of Supreme Court decisions could have avoided the civil war.