Fifty years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that Border Patrol agents acted unconstitutionally when they stopped a vehicle near San Clemente simply because its occupants appeared to be of Mexican descent. The justices emphasized that the 4th Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches. A person’s “Mexican appearance” alone can’t justify a stop or questioning about immigration status.
Fast forward to today, and the Supreme Court has taken a different stance. Recently, in a 6-3 decision favoring the Trump administration, the justices allowed agents to stop and question individuals based on race or ethnicity, as long as it’s combined with other factors. Justice Brett Kavanaugh stated that “apparent ethnicity” could be relevant when considering reasonable suspicion.
Critics were quick to voice their concerns. UCLA law professor Ahilan Arulanantham called the ruling “shocking and appalling,” arguing it legitimizes racial discrimination. He pointed out the inconsistency in the Court’s approach, as it earlier prohibited using race in college admissions, stating that eliminating racial discrimination requires a comprehensive approach.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, dissenting, highlighted that nearly half of Los Angeles residents identify as Latino. She raised concerns that the ruling could lead to more individuals being wrongfully stopped based solely on their appearance or occupation.
A recent report showed that before this decision, ICE agents had already confronted U.S. citizens and lawful residents without allowing them to prove their status. People have begun carrying identification more often, fearing racial profiling in expanded ICE raids.
Responding to public anxiety, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed the rules around questioning were consistent with long-standing practices. However, tweets from the House Homeland Security Committee Democrats underscored the fears about racial profiling, stating, “Nobody is safe when ‘looking Hispanic’ is treated as probable cause.”
Opinions on the ruling vary. Tom Homan, a White House border advisor, argued against the notion of racial profiling, insisting that detentions are based on reasonable suspicion. Nonetheless, this situation raises questions about what constitutes reasonable suspicion. With around 10% of people in Los Angeles reportedly living in the country illegally, the debate continues on how ethnicity and occupation play into enforcement practices.
In a society striving for equality, this ruling could be seen as a setback, opening doors for profiling based on race. The extent of its impact remains to be seen, but it has sparked significant concern and conversation around civil rights and justice in America.
For more on this topic, consider looking at resources from the American Civil Liberties Union or National Immigration Law Center.
