On September 8, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued one of the most consequential immigration enforcement decisions in decades — and its effects are still unfolding in 2026. In Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, the Court voted 6–3 to allow ICE agents to resume immigration stops in Los Angeles that a federal judge had blocked for constituting illegal racial profiling. The ruling green-lit the use of race, ethnicity, language, and location as factors when stopping individuals for immigration enforcement — with no full briefing, no oral argument, and no majority opinion explaining the Court’s reasoning. This guide explains what was decided, what Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence means in practice, what the dissent argues, and what your rights are today.
Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo — vote breakdown, Kavanaugh stop factors, and Sotomayor’s dissent.
What Is Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo?
The case arose from ICE immigration raids in Los Angeles in June 2025. During those operations, agents stopped and detained multiple individuals — not based on specific warrants or individualized suspicion, but because they appeared Latino, spoke Spanish or accented English, and were working low-wage jobs. Five plaintiffs — Pedro Vasquez Perdomo, Carlos Alexander Osorto, Isaac Villegas Molina, Jorge Hernandez Viramontes, and Jason Brian Gavidia — filed suit arguing these stops were unconstitutional racial profiling under the Fourth Amendment.
A federal district court in Los Angeles agreed and issued an injunction blocking ICE from conducting “roving patrol” stops based on how people look, what language they speak, or where they work. The 9th Circuit upheld that injunction. The Trump administration then appealed to the Supreme Court on the emergency “shadow docket” — a procedure allowing justices to act quickly without full briefing or argument.
What Did the Supreme Court Rule?
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 order granted the government’s emergency request and stayed — paused — the lower court’s injunction. That means ICE can resume stops using race and ethnicity as factors while the case continues at the 9th Circuit. The majority issued no written opinion explaining its reasoning. This is a hallmark of the shadow docket: major legal changes made without the transparency of a full merits decision.
The only reasoning came from Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s non-binding concurrence. He wrote that “apparent ethnicity,” “speaking Spanish or English with an accent,” type of employment, and location are legitimate “relevant factors” that can contribute to reasonable suspicion for an immigration stop — when considered alongside other facts. Kavanaugh relied on the 1975 precedent United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, which had allowed ethnicity as one factor near the border, and extended that reasoning to interior enforcement nationwide. Legal scholars have begun calling this framework the “Kavanaugh stop.”
The three dissenting justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson — wrote sharply in opposition. Justice Sotomayor stated: “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.”
What Is a “Kavanaugh Stop”?
The term “Kavanaugh stop” has entered legal discourse to describe an immigration stop justified in part by a person’s apparent race or ethnicity, language, and location. Under this framework, ICE agents can assert “reasonable suspicion” — the standard needed for a brief investigatory stop — by combining factors like:
- The person appears to be of Hispanic or Latino descent
- The person speaks Spanish or English with an accent
- The person is in an area associated with undocumented immigrant populations
- The person appears to work a low-wage or manual labor job
No single factor is supposed to be determinative — and race cannot be the sole factor. But critics argue that in practice, these factors together amount to a profile encompassing millions of U.S. citizens and lawfully present immigrants.
Is This Permanent? What Is the Current Status?
No — this is not a final ruling on the merits. The Supreme Court’s September 2025 order was an emergency stay, not a full decision. The underlying case is still being litigated at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Depending on that ruling, the case could return to the Supreme Court for a full merits decision with briefing, oral argument, and a majority opinion. As of May 2026, the stay remains in effect and ICE can conduct stops using the Kavanaugh factors.
Who Is Most Affected?
The ruling has the broadest impact on Latino and Hispanic individuals — citizens and lawful immigrants included — who may be stopped based on appearance alone. Spanish speakers are explicitly affected, as accent and language are listed factors. Manual laborers and day workers, residents of cities with large immigrant populations, DACA recipients, and TPS holders are all at heightened risk of stops. Importantly, U.S. citizens of Hispanic descent are not exempt — the ruling does not require agents to verify citizenship before making a stop.
Your Rights If ICE Stops You
Even under the Vasquez Perdomo stay, constitutional rights remain in force. If stopped by ICE:
- Stay calm and do not run. Running can be used against you.
- You have the right to remain silent. Do not answer questions about your immigration status or birthplace. Say clearly: “I am exercising my right to remain silent.”
- Do not consent to a search. Say: “I do not consent to a search.”
- Ask if you are free to go. If the agent says yes, calmly walk away.
- Do not show false documents. Presenting fraudulent documents is a separate crime.
- If detained, ask for a lawyer immediately. You have the right to an attorney before questioning.
- Do not sign anything without speaking to a lawyer, including voluntary departure forms.
- Document everything afterward — officer names, badge numbers, what was said.
Fourth Amendment Background: What Changed?
The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. For a brief investigatory stop (a “Terry stop”), law enforcement needs “reasonable suspicion” — a specific, articulable basis to believe criminal activity is afoot. Historically, race alone could not constitute reasonable suspicion. The 1975 case United States v. Brignoni-Ponce carved out a narrow exception near the U.S.-Mexico border: apparent Mexican ancestry could be one factor in reasonable suspicion. Kavanaugh’s concurrence effectively extends this border exception to interior cities across the country — a significant doctrinal expansion actively debated by legal scholars.
Reactions and Ongoing Litigation
Civil rights organizations — including the ACLU, ILRC, and CLASP — condemned the ruling. A New York Times editorial in May 2026 argued that recent Supreme Court decisions have collectively enabled a regime of racial profiling in immigration enforcement. Legal scholars at Stanford, Columbia, and the University of Michigan have published critiques examining the constitutional implications. The ACLU of Wisconsin reported a surge in racial profiling complaints in the months following the decision.
The 9th Circuit continues to hear the full case. Advocacy groups are pursuing separate legislative and judicial strategies to restore the protections the injunction had provided.
Frequently Asked Questions
–>📚 Related Guides
