Shannon Kelly ’26

by Shannon Kelly ’26 on September 18, 2025

 On Monday, Sept. 8, the Supreme Court overturned a federal judge’s ruling that had found immigration enforcement agents were engaging in discrimination based on race, language, location, and occupation in a 6–3 decision. In July, Judge Frimpong of Los Angeles ruled that federal agents were likely infringing upon the Fourth Amendment when making stops. With this ruling overturned, federal agents under the guise of ICE and DHS are permitted to stop people based on parts of their identity. This includes race, ethnicity, language, possible accents, and their presence at specific sites of work. 

This case has shifted national attention to the Fourth Amendment, which protects the right of the people to not be unreasonably searched and seized by the government. This ruling has brought an intense amount of fear across the United States, specifically in cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York. This ruling from the Supreme Court also comes at a time of heightened anxiety regarding the Trump Administration’s recent attempt at a federal takeover of our nation’s capital, Washington, D.C. 

Since June, armed and masked federal agents have utilized roving patrols to carry out sweeps of immigrants who may lack proper documentation. This overturning by the Supreme Court was concurred by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who stated that immigration officers must be able to use their experience to stop suspected undocumented immigrants. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that, “Because this is unconscionably irreconcilable with our nation’s constitutional guarantees, I dissent.” 

This case reflects the current political leanings of the 6–3 conservative majority of the Supreme Court. All six of the conservative Supreme Court Justices upheld that the Constitution likely allows for federal immigration agents to use blunter tactics when selecting suspected undocumented immigrants to interrogate. All three liberal Justices voted in dissent of the bill, ultimately pointing out the polarization in the Supreme Court based on the political party of which they are a part.

This case symbolizes the division, the collective inability to engage in uncomfortable conversation, and the constant dehumanization of those who have been othered that currently define the state of our nation. Many feel unsafe at their place of work and now risk being targeted for the parts of themselves that they should take pride in, rather than feel the need to hide. With immigration being one of the most controversial topics at this moment in time, we must be able to engage in meaningful dialogue that recognizes the humanity, dignity, and care that all people, regardless of immigration status, are worthy of.