Masked and armed Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents filed into an auto body shop in Montebello, a working-class suburb in Southern California. They seized Jason Gavidia, a Hispanic American, and pinned his body onto a metal fence; they fired off questions about his citizenship and pressed him with trivial ones, like which hospital he was born in. Gavidia claimed he was American and offered his identification; upon doing so, he was released.
In the wake of this, Gavidia told an NBC affiliate, “I truly believe I was targeted because of my race. I believe I was racially profiled. I believe I was attacked because I was walking while brown. Where is the freedom? Where is the justice? We live in America.” He is far from alone in this conviction.
Throughout the past summer, numerous cases in Los Angeles were reported of armed, masked agents detaining U.S. citizens in broad daylight. These raids targeted bus stops, car washes, day-laborer pickup sites, and public parks. Racial profiling and discriminatory practices like these used in ICE raids are likely to proliferate following the recent Supreme Court ruling on Vasquez Peromo v. Noem.
On July 11, 2025, a district court issued a temporary restraining order, prohibiting U.S. immigration officers from making investigative stops based on race, accent, presence at certain locations, or type of work. The judge cited “ample evidence” that the Department of Homeland Security relied on those factors—often acting violently on this speculative information —and ruled such seizures unconstitutional. Nonetheless, on September 9, 2025, the Supreme Court lifted this restriction. In a 6-3 decision, the court temporarily halted the lower court’s order via an emergency stay, allowing federal immigration authorities to continue these broad, profiling-based operations while the case proceeds.
The order was a single sentence with no oral argument, no briefing, and no warning to the public. The lack of explanation from the majority makes it difficult to determine if the ruling applies nationally or only in Los Angeles, where such raids are particularly prominent. Although this is not a final ruling, the court’s choice to act in silence divulges a willingness to replace the need for case-by-case suspicion with broad, probabilistic policing. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented, “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.”
With the injunction lifted, the Department of Homeland Security and ICE may now stop individuals who “match the profile,” effectively amounting to overt racial profiling. This ruling marks Latinos as presumptively suspect, with citizens and legal residents subjected to stops until they can prove that they are not a threat.
By enabling broad, probability-based policing without transparency, the court has opened the door to routine racial profiling, leaving families, workers, and communities under constant uncertainty and fear.
At Concord Academy, a school that emphasizes equity and critical inquiry, the court’s decision forces us to confront the gap between the principles we study and the lived realities of many communities. Our campus may feel insulated from racial profiling and immigration raids, yet engaging with these rulings is crucial to recognize that legal protections are not equally applied. Examining these disparities challenges us to extend our education beyond theory and move towards a more active role in confronting injustice.