The Sept. 8 Supreme Court Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo decision ruled to overturn a Los Angeles ban on immigration stops based on perceived race, ethnicity, language and place of employment, sparking discourse among 5C community members.
The ruling lifted a July 2024 order by a U.S. District Court in California and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that barred roving patrols and subsequent discriminatory immigration stops by ICE.
While supporters argue that the decision was necessary to ensure efficient immigration control, many have criticized the decision, arguing that immigration stops on grounds of “reasonable suspicion” enable racial profiling. These grounds include a person speaking Spanish, having an accent or existing in a place of work that ICE may deem “suspicious.”
Heather Williams, a politics professor at Pomona College who specializes in Latin American politics and U.S.-Mexico borderlands, said she was shocked by the decision.
“In the environment we’re living in, with a lack of clarity about the Fourth Amendment, and the really aggressive patrols that have been occurring in Los Angeles, I thought that the Supreme Court would let the temporary restraining order remain in place,” Williams said.
Julia Morris, a professor of politics at Scripps, who specializes in migration, humanitarianism and border work, shared similar views.
“I think it has hugely devastating implications for local communities, for individuals in the LA and SoCal area, in that people can be picked up solely based on their appearance,” Morris said. “Half the population of our region potentially meets the government’s criteria.”
“I think it has hugely devastating implications for local communities, for individuals in the LA and SoCal area, in that people can be picked up solely based on their appearance,” Morris said. “Half the population of our region potentially meets the government’s criteria.”
Anna Mone SC ’28 said her initial reaction to the decision was fear and anxiety for her friends and community members, whom she knew would be impacted most.
“I think overall, I see it as a huge regression in equal rights and equal protection under the law,” Mone said.
In recent months, the Supreme Court has increasingly used the emergency docket to issue rulings without oral arguments or full briefing, a practice known as the “shadow docket,” as was the case in the Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo ruling.
Mone said that with the constant updates about the judicial branch, she hopes people are aware of this new decision.
“It’s hard to keep up and to stay aware of everything that’s changing, and so I really hope that the wider community is made aware of this new update so they know how to best protect themselves moving forward,” she said.
Williams added that she believes this ruling may increase the possibility of other vulnerable communities having their Fourth Amendment rights — prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures — stripped.
Within the ruling, reasonable suspicion is used as a legal cause for ICE to search and question people. The vague and subjective emphasis on reasonable suspicion over probable cause, according to Morris, allows for racial profiling.
“It just grants roving patrols the license to go to any places where they suspect that someone might be undocumented in hugely discriminatory and stereotyped ways,” she said, adding that the decision is very concerning for the safety of students and staff at the 5Cs.
Similarly, Williams said that as a professor during this time, she found it impacting the way she thinks and goes about teaching in a way she said she has never experienced before.
“I think very carefully in class about some of the materials that I present, because I don’t know whether students who are vulnerable might be seen reading or even discussing something that is now considered to be criminalizing,” Williams said.
“I’ve never had to self-censor in that way in my life,” she said.
Mone said that she thinks it is important that the Claremont Colleges continue to support the surrounding communities, which will be especially impacted.
“I know there are members of our community whose mobility and security are being threatened by this decision, and I think it’s important to remain in contact and in support of the wider communities that are definitely going to feel this decision, “ she said.
The Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo decision is a non-final, emergency ruling. Morris said that she hopes that there will be enough pushback from activists and organizations to overturn the ruling.
“My hope is that people will be able to stand up and advocate and be able to come together in solidarity to provide support and protection for folks across the Claremont Colleges and the region more broadly,” she said.
Facebook Comments