The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to release its mass deportation efforts in southern California, seeking to raise a ban on “itinerant patrols” implemented after a lower court discovered that such tactics probably violated the 4th amendment.
The restrictions, initially transmitted in an order of July 11, the masked bar and the agents strongly armed to tear it from people from the streets of Los Angeles and the cities of seven other counties without first establishing reasonable suspicions that they are illegally in the United States.
Under the 4th amendment, reasonable suspicions cannot be based solely on the race, ethnicity, language, location or employment, alone or in combination, the American district judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong of Los Angeles found in his initial decision.
The Trump administration said in its appeal before the High Court that the decision of FRIMPONG, confirmed last week by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, “threatens to reverse the capacity of immigration officials to ensure compliance with immigration laws in the California central district by hanging the prospect of an outrage for each investigation.”
Lawyers behind the proceedings contesting immigration tactics immediately questioned the arguments of the Trump administration.
“This is unprecedented,” said Mark Rosenbaum of Counsel Public, who is part of the coalition of civil rights and individual lawyers who contesting the cases of three immigrants and two American citizens were swept away in chaotic arrests. “The memory asks the Supreme Court to bless the open season on anyone on Los Angeles which happens to be Latin.”
This decision is barely 24 hours after heavily armed border patrol agents took workers outside a Westlake Home deposit after leaving the back of a Penske moving truck – actions that some experts seemed to violate the court order.
If the Supreme Court takes over the case, many now believe that appropriate and apparently similar measures to apply the standard again.
“Everything that has to do with the police and immigration, the Supreme Court seems to give the president for free,” said Eric J. Segall, professor at the Georgia State University College of Law and an eminent researcher of the highest court in the country. “I think the court is going to line up on the side of the Trump administration.”
The Ministry of Justice has repeatedly argued that the temporary prohibition order causes “damage manifested irreparable” to the government. Officials are particularly impatient to see him overturned because the California central district is the only most populous in the country and houses a plurality of undocumented immigrants.
In its request from the Supreme Court, the Ministry of Justice allegedly alleged that around 10% of residents in the region were illegally in the United States.
“According to estimates of data from the Ministry of Internal Security, nearly 4 million illegal foreigners are in California, and nearly 2 million are in the California central district. The County of Los Angeles alone had around 951,000 illegal foreigners in 2019 – by far the most of all counties in the United States,” said the petition.
President Trump made mass deportations a centerpiece of his 2024 campaign and paid billions in federal and non -capitalized political capital in the arrest, imprisonment and elimination of immigrants. Although lawyers for the Ministry of Justice have declared to the Court of Appeal that there was no policy or quota, administration officials and persons involved in planning its expulsion operations have on several occasions 3,000 arrests per day and one million deportations per year as objectives.
The district and appeal courts have blocked, blocked and sometimes reversed many of these efforts in recent weeks, forcing the return of a father from Maryland to wrongly expelled to the Salvadoral prison, forcing the release of student demonstrators of the ice, preserving the citizenship of birth for children of immigrant parents and stopping the construction of “Alligator Alcatraz”.
But little of the president’s immigration program has so far been tested before the Supreme Court.
If the result is unfavorable to Trump, some observers wonder if he will let the judges limit his program.
“Even if they had to lose the Supreme Court, I have serious doubts that they will stop,” said Segall.
