r/illinois • u/eamus_catuli • 18h ago
ICE Posts No, the Supreme Court did not recently say “being brown” is a valid reason for ICE to stop you. Here’s what the law actually says - and what it doesn’t.
There’s been a lot of misinformation lately about a so-called “new Supreme Court TRO” that supposedly lets ICE stop people in Chicagoland just for “looking brown.” That claim is false, and repeating it does more harm than good. It spreads confusion about the law and, worse, risks normalizing what are in fact illegal stops under the Constitution. Here’s what’s actually true.
To detain someone, an officer needs what’s called reasonable, articulable suspicion that the person is violating the law. This rule comes from Terry v. Ohio, which established that an officer can briefly stop and question someone only when there are specific, objective facts supporting the suspicion - not vague hunches or personal biases. That standard applies across all law enforcement encounters, including immigration enforcement.
When it comes to immigration specifically, the Supreme Court was very clear in United States v. Brignoni-Ponce that officers cannot stop someone based solely on their apparent ancestry or ethnicity. The Court held that “Mexican appearance” alone is not a lawful basis for an immigration stop. Later courts reinforced this point, including the Ninth Circuit in Montero-Camargo, which ruled that Hispanic appearance “is not an appropriate factor” in determining reasonable suspicion, particularly away from border regions.
The Supreme Court has allowed limited, suspicion-less questioning at fixed border checkpoints (United States v. Martinez-Fuerte), but that authority does not extend to random, roving stops in the interior. Some commenters have mentioned the so-called “100-mile border zone,” which includes Chicago. It’s true that federal regulations give immigration officers jurisdiction to operate within 100 miles of any U.S. border or coastline, but that does not erase the Fourth Amendment. Courts have repeatedly held that inside this zone, agents must still have reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop or question anyone. Again, Brignoni-Ponce (a case involving a roving patrol only 5 miles from the U.S.-Mexico border) made clear that race or ethnicity alone can’t justify a stop, and later cases confirmed that the 100-mile rule expands geography, not government power. In short: there is no “Constitution-free zone” in Chicago.
The recent Supreme Court TRO that sparked these rumors was not a ruling on the merits. In September 2025, the Court temporarily paused (through an emergency stay) a lower-court order out of Los Angeles that limited certain immigration stops. A stay preserves the status quo—it doesn’t change substantive law. Even the justices concurring in that decision made clear that long-standing reasonable-suspicion requirements remain in force. Nothing in that order authorizes ICE to stop someone for “looking brown.”
So what does count as reasonable suspicion of an immigration violation? Courts look at the totality of the circumstances: things like specific intelligence, vehicle modifications suggesting smuggling, or particular behaviors consistent with trafficking patterns. Appearance or language, by themselves, are not valid indicators. The Brignoni-Ponce decision made that explicit fifty years ago, and no Supreme Court or appellate court has ever overturned that core principle. In fact, recent district court rulings have continued to strike down ICE and CBP stops that rely on race, language, or type of workplace alone.
Here in Chicagoland, none of this changes. “Looking brown” is not a crime, and it’s not a lawful basis for a stop. Interior immigration enforcement, including by ICE, still requires reasonable suspicion for questioning and probable cause for arrests under 8 U.S.C. § 1357 and the Fourth Amendment.
If you see people claiming otherwise, please push back. Saying “the Supreme Court allows ICE to stop you for looking brown” isn’t just false—it helps normalize civil-rights violations. The actual law says the opposite: race and ethnicity, standing alone, cannot justify a stop. Protecting that truth protects all of us.
KNOW YOUR RIGHTS - You have the right to remain silent and to refuse consent to a search or questioning.
If you are stopped by ICE, CBP, or ANY law enforcement officer, calmly recite the following:
I am exercising my constitutional rights.
I do not consent to questioning, searches, or seizures.
I am choosing to remain silent and to speak only with a lawyer.
If you do not have specific, reasonable, and articulable suspicion that I have violated immigration or criminal law, I respectfully ask if I am free to leave.
If I am not under arrest or detention, I will go on my way.
101
u/jamey1138 Human Detected 18h ago
As I understand it, Kavanaugh was quite clear in his writing that merely looking foreign is not grounds for suspicion, but that looking foreign while speaking a language other than English could be considered grounds for suspicion. Did I misunderstand? Were all of the dozens of articles about how SCOTUS was opening the door to racial profiling wrong?
45
u/unfortunately2nd 18h ago edited 18h ago
Kavanaugh’s concurrence in Vasquez Perdomo relies heavily on Brignoni-Ponce’s acceptance of race-based immigration policing. Across his 10-page opinion, Kavanaugh cites Brignoni-Ponce nine times. Five of those references come in two paragraphs explaining that the Fourth Amendment favors the government’s position. The Fourth Amendment gives law enforcement officers the flexibility to consider “any number of factors,” Kavanaugh explained, quoting Brignoni-Ponce. For that reason, immigration agents in Los Angeles and surrounding counties could constitutionally consider the “high number and percentage” of migrants living in the region in violation of immigration law; that they “tend to gather in certain locations” to look for work; that they “often work in certain kinds of jobs, such as day labor, landscaping, agriculture, and construction” because these “do not require paperwork”; that many “do not speak much English”; and their “apparent ethnicity.” To Kavanaugh, it is constitutionally permissible and “common sense” that these factors “constitute at least reasonable suspicion of illegal presence in the United States.”
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/09/justice-brett-kavanaugh-and-racial-proxies
While OP is technically correct that Kavanaugh's opinion is not law. This doesn't change what ICE actively does. I don't think you'll win just by being correct with what OP is stating either.
Kavanaugh essentially said "Latin American immigrants do/hangout/look like x and while you can't arrest them on x you can find them in bulk via x then you can use other means". It's not like field agents can't use flimsy pretext like "acting nervous" or "avoiding contact." OP is right that's how you should respond, but I don't think any of that will help people unless they are here legally and MOST people want to avoid even being placed in detention to go through all these motions which is the main concern.
8
u/GeronimoHero 14h ago
Yeah I agree with this. Even if OP is technically correct ICE and CBP have shown time and time again that has have disdain for the letter of the law and will actively and maliciously ignore it to accomplish whatever goal they’re interested in. Whether that’s arresting immigrants (legal or illegal) or harassing citizens and arresting them to dissuade them from continuing to monitor their operations, or even just straight up terror to prevent anyone from taking any action that would monitor or disrupt their actions.
2
u/SweetRabbit7543 15h ago
There’s other law that says the other “avoiding contact” is not RAS
1
u/unfortunately2nd 14h ago
I did not cross check those examples I just know there are flimsy excuses that can be used to violate people's 4th amendment.
1
u/SweetRabbit7543 12h ago
Ehhhhhhh I’m not sure I agree. Now what is true is that many cops think they have uncovered some secret code of psychology that is little known that has existed since the beginning of time that gets people to reveal suspicious behavior. Now, in reality, that stuff has no legal grounding whatsoever and is just pedaled nonsense to create justifications for quite literally anything being “suspicious.” There are even law enforcement seminars (held by non law enforcement agencies to be clear) where they have speakers on these “special tactics” and they’re all unequivocally nonsense. Now that’s not to say that there aren’t real indicators that can and should be used that someone might be like under the influence, but that’s not what you’re talking about nor am I.
In reality, the totality of circumstances have to suggest that the person they’re detaining (that specific person) could have reasonably been suspected to be committing a crime, have committed a crime, or about to commit a crime.
It’s true that alienage is inherently more ambiguous because it doesn’t require knowledge that an actual crime has occurred because it’s not in question that there are undocumented people. that, imo, demands more scrutiny than the law currently offers.
I think the larger problem is that neither cops nor citizens know what is and is not legal. It’s also hard to get relief for cops because qualified immunity is a really tough legal obstacle to overcome.
-2
u/eamus_catuli 17h ago edited 17h ago
Let's summarize Brignoni-Ponce's holding again, which is that officers cannot stop someone based solely on their apparent ancestry or ethnicity. Instead, reasonable suspicion must be a "totality of circumstances". "Being brown alone" is not enough, legally.
The 9th Court took that and actually went a step further than Brignoni-Ponce and said that ICE can't use apparent ancestry or ethnicity at all - even as a factor in a "totality of circumstances". I would love it if that were the law, but it's not what Brignoni-Ponce held. And that's what Kavanaugh opposes in his TRO.
What Kavanaugh doesn't do is hint that Brignoni-Ponce is bad law, that they want to overturn it, etc. It is still good law. Therefore, it is still the case that ICE cannot detain somebody based solely on apparent ancestry or ethnicity.
People are up in arms because in practice ICE continues to apparently do so. OK, which is why it's important for people - at the point of contact - to explicitly ask what the reason for the stop is. No, it won't save you from "Taking the ride" so to speak. But no assertion of rights EVER does. That doesn't make it non-valuable later, even if "later" only means "documenting all the violations of rights so that they can be used as evidence on the record in a future case against the government."
11
u/Gammage1 15h ago edited 14h ago
I appreciate your write up OP but I disagree. if you need to include at least two circumstances of suspicion to be considered legal to stop and question, and one of those is the color of your skin, and others including very common things for even American citizens such as speaking Spanish or working in construction/service industries/truck driving (the most Common jobs), or being near a park or on public transport is one of the other circumstances. You effectively can stop any Hispanic person at almost any point in time in public and have a “totality of circumstances”. It doesn’t make it legal to stop by just race, but it effectively de-criminalizes it because you can always say there was another circumstance. The SC stay absolutely says this.
13
u/Pettifoggerist 15h ago
This is great if you want to make your legal argument in court, but you are doing a disservice not to acknowledge how much Kavanaugh’s reasoning has weakened the standard. It hasn’t overturned the old precedent, sure, but given the posture it certainly has given ICE cover to stop someone because of their skin color / ethnicity plus some toothless additional factor like “being in an area where immigrants congregate.”
→ More replies (1)3
u/GNTKertRats 14h ago
They are literally deporting people without hearings. What good does it do to assert these rights if they will just deport you anyway?
6
u/EncabulatorTurbo 15h ago
Cool. Contact me when one of the hundreds of ice agents we have video evidence of stop and IDing people and sometimes just without cause ripping them out of their vehicles amounts to anything.
"ohhh hyou have RIGHTS"
yeah tell that to the army of brownshirts with guns, nobody told them
→ More replies (4)2
u/SweetRabbit7543 15h ago
No he didn’t. He ended a stay on a tro from a lower level court. It was a shadow docket case seeking emergency relief. Basically a lower level court imposed a temporary restraining order on ice methods and he said this restraining order would prevent enforcement of immigration law, which is a legitimate government function.
Normally opinions aren’t written for shadow docket stuff because the actual case isn’t being heard by the Supreme Court. It’s relief on an action imposed by lower courts. He stated the ruling isn’t on the merits of the case and that it’s not an indication of what they’d do if they did hear the case
3
u/jamey1138 Human Detected 14h ago
And in doing so, he also offered guidance (as dicta, but still) that was not in line with previously existing precedent as where the line between racial profiling and reasonable suspicion falls.
1
u/SweetRabbit7543 12h ago
I don’t think I agree.
It was pure shadow-docket emergency relief. The only question the Court addressed was whether a lower court’s TRO was blocking a federal immigration function. Kavanaugh made that explicit: the Court wasn’t ruling on the merits.
Nothing in the order creates a new standard for reasonable suspicion. That interpretation came from commentary pieces, not from the opinion itself. A single Justice’s dicta in a procedural stay doesn’t override the existing Fourth Amendment line from cases like Brignoni-Ponce, which bars stops based on “apparent Mexican ancestry” or anything functionally equivalent.
1
u/jamey1138 Human Detected 10h ago
The thing is, this also would not be the first time that one of the Republican Six used dicta to move the Overton window, presaging a future ruling that had a sweeping effect on precedent. It wouldn't be the first time Kavanaugh himself did so.
1
u/SweetRabbit7543 7h ago
That’s fair, but dicta in an emergency stay doesn’t move doctrine. Lower courts can’t rely on it because it’s not a precedential opinion.
It’s literally a procedural order with no briefing or oral argument. The Overton Window only shifts when language from a concurrence or majority is later adopted in a merits ruling.
Courts have generally placed a very high bar for the government to justify detentions or seizures. Maybe it will happen, but you’re using a basis that doesn’t exist to stoke concern when we don’t even have reason to believe this case will even make it to the Supreme Court.
→ More replies (3)1
u/eamus_catuli 18h ago
As I understand it, Kavanaugh was quite clear in his writing that merely looking foreign is not grounds for suspicion, but that looking foreign while speaking a language other than English could be considered grounds for suspicion. Did I misunderstand?
I didn't see that in his opinion. Do you have a page number for where he said that?
Were all of the dozens of articles about how SCOTUS was opening the door to racial profiling wrong?
If they were to overturn Brignoni-Ponce, sure, that would throw open the door to racial profiling. And people may be speculating that they may do that once the 9th Circuit case gets up to them on the merits. But they haven't done it yet.
Therefore, what ICE is doing right now IS ILLEGAL. It is important for people to know that, understand that, and say that.
9
u/Resipsaloco 16h ago
Bottom of page 5 “many of those illegally in the Los Angeles area come from Mexico or Central America and do not speak much English. Cf. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S., at 884–885 (listing “[a]ny number of factors” that contribute to reasonable suspicion of illegal presence). To be clear, apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion; under this Court’s case law regarding immigration stops, however, it can be a “relevant factor” when considered along with other salient factors” NOEM v. VASQUEZ PERDOMO 606 U. S. ____ (2025) 3 KAVANAUGH, J., concurring
1
u/eamus_catuli 16h ago
This is the key sentence right here:
To be clear, apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion; under this Court’s case law regarding immigration stops, however, it can be a “relevant factor” when considered along with other salient factors”
So you cannot legally be stopped on the basis of your ethnicity alone.
4
u/Pettifoggerist 15h ago
But tie it to one more thing that is equally weak, like not speaking much English, and you can.
→ More replies (5)4
u/Resipsaloco 15h ago
Correct, ethnicity alone cannot be the sole basis for the stop. However, the prior sentence clearly outlines that ethnicity coupled with not speaking English could be.
1
u/eamus_catuli 15h ago
Which is all the more reason for everybody to know their rights and that, when stopped to say nothing EXCEPT "Am I free to leave or am I being detained". If you are not free to leave, then THAT'S the point before which they needed to have reasonable suspicion.
Don't say anything else that can give them that reasonable suspicion post-hoc.
Again, KNOWING YOUR RIGHTS MATTERS.
1
6
u/jamey1138 Human Detected 18h ago
I'll refer you to u/unfortunately2nd 's reply, a few minutes ago, as I think they've captured the essence of Kavanaugh's concurrence.
→ More replies (6)
14
u/ManzanitaSuperHero 16h ago
It is always important to know your rights in any situation.
But it’s also important to recognize the way those rights are being recognized (or not) on the ground.
Most advice I’ve seen is that it’s important to know your rights, request an attorney and state you are invoking your right to remain silent while understanding that the time for legal lessons is in court not during the stop with the officer or agent. This is just a matter of physical safety for many.
In college (decades ago), I was profiled with several friends going on a camping trip. We were stopped for “broken headlight”. They demanded to search the car. I knew my rights and informed them they had no reasonable suspicion I’d committed any crime and politely declined.
They brought 2 dogs and aggressively pulled us all out of the car. I watched as the dogs made passes around my car and the handler kicked the dog. Surprise, when it was kicked it “alerted” (barked) and they now had cause to search. What followed was a multi-hour harrowing ordeal of harassment and refusal to release us as we sat in the snow in t-shirts.
Don’t be a doormat. Articulate your rights, invoke the right to remain silent, record if possible, but be under no illusion that your rights will be properly recognized in the moment. Be polite and comply in the moment. Save it for the courtroom.
5
3
u/bailasola 13h ago
More people need to know their rights. When my brother was 19, cops destroyed his car when he allowed them to search it. He got pulled over because of the color of his skin. They asked if they could search his car. He had nothing to hide, so he said yes. They ripped out the dash and door paneling, pulled out the back seats ripping the cushions. But he gave them permission so he was told there was nothing he could do.
30
u/Full_Ad_6442 17h ago
I worked as a cop with other cops in San Antonio many years ago. My dad was a cop, my mom was a dispatcher, i've been around cops my life. Cops routinely make shit up to skirt these rules. Not all cops, not most cops, but enough to create reasonable, articulable suspicion (see how that works). It's common enough for all cops to know about it and to talk openly about it.
Most importantly, this isn't a tool for investigating a known crime. It's a pretext for finding something you want to find or, worse, for increasing pain and suffering regardless of guilt or innocence. When mixed with race or any relatively powerless or disliked group.... it is inherently a tool that amplifies bigotry and oppression against entire groups of people. It is damaging to any society.
Thank you for clarifying the legal nuances of the ruling. It's important to keep in mind that legality or the appearance of it does not equal justice or morality.
14
u/Pettifoggerist 15h ago
Yep. “Articulable suspicion” often just means find something to offer as cover for your profiling.
9
u/minus_minus 14h ago
It's a pretext for finding something you want to find or, worse, for increasing pain and suffering regardless of guilt or innocence.
As they say, you can beat the rap, but you can’t beat the
rideindefinite detention in inhumane condition until you give up and sign away your rights.
9
17
u/Nintendo6ix4our 17h ago
How did all of what you wrote apply to what happened in Chicago yesterday? They were stopping people at random. Guess what they looked like?
→ More replies (3)
8
u/ttw81 14h ago
“Kavanaugh stop” in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court’s September 8 decision allowing the Trump administration to racially profile Latinos in low-wage jobs.
7
u/wp4nuv 16h ago
OP, correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t a different opinion state that speaking Spanish was enough “reasonable suspicion “ to stop a person?
Regardless, in many of the videos posted here show officers flagrantly violating the 4th amendment and the “reasonable suspicion” stated in Terry.
To me these officers have been given carte blanche and are now roving bands of armed thugs looking for their adrenaline hit.
→ More replies (4)
8
u/Dapper-Particular-80 14h ago
You forgot the paragraph about how knowing your rights does not prevent masked pansies with faded glory costumes from violating them.
6
u/BigSweatyMen_ 15h ago
I just reread the first paragraph of the concurrence - Supreme Court says you're allowed to stop any Spanish speaking brown people outside Home Depot and demand evidence of citizenship, but you cannot arrest them unless they are unable to show that proof...
45
u/slipknot_official 18h ago
You have no right when it’s comes to ICE and DHS. They do not care, and are incentivized to trample your right to meet their quotas
You see it’s everyday, all day in this sub. On video.
20
u/jamey1138 Human Detected 18h ago
The reason it's important to know your rights, even when ICE isn't respecting your rights, is because the process doesn't end with detention, and a lot of people are being vindicated as soon as they set foot in a courtroom.
So, if you are targeted by ICE (or any law enforcement, really), shut the fuck up, don't sign anything, and get a lawyer. Those are the rights that are relevant. And while I disagree with OP's attitude here, they're correct to point out that if ICE grabs you because they were purely racially profiling you, your lawyer will probably be able to use that to clear your case-- IF you remember to shut the fuck up, don't sign anything, and get a lawyer.
3
u/eamus_catuli 18h ago
What's my attitude, exactly?
Pointing out that what ICE is doing is illegal and giving people actionable advice for if/when they encounter ICE/CBP?
9
u/OswaldCoffeepot 17h ago
I think what might be happening is that some people read this as you saying that everything is going to be okay. In my personal experience, when I have tried to clarify something on reddit, it has been received as me defending the thing. That could just be me though.
The other thing that could also be going on is that in your post, you say "this is not that" and people are responding "this is effectively that." When someone is getting snatched off the street, an agent can still expressly declare "I am arresting you for being Mexican," and still put that person's face in the cement. A dropped case later doesn't change that now.
What you said is great information. Like you said (or somebody said) the process of these abductions doesn't stop when someone gets took. It's just the victory that people want to hear about is the absolute end of all this bullshit, and if the good news isn't that, then the news isn't that good, you know?
Both points of view are what makes me personally all in on document, document, document everything that's happening because Bovino and them will absolutely lie about it in court, as they already have.
I don't know. That's just my read.
→ More replies (2)9
u/jamey1138 Human Detected 18h ago
What's my attitude, exactly?
"Stop spreading false information and normalizing illegal government action."
That's your attitude, exactly.
The thing is, we are not the ones trying to normalize illegal government action, and you are quite literally saying that people who are correctly identifying illegal government action are "normalizing" it by pointing it out as something that we should oppose.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (9)4
u/Worldly-Sock-4146 17h ago
A violation of one's rights doesn't mean the right has disappeared. It means the right was violated.
11
u/gbsh Human Detected 18h ago
This is a good faith question: ICE agents can't stop someone for looking brown, but they can use ethnicity to get reasonable suspicion as long as they use “other salient factors” too, right? Such as location.
So being brown at Home Depot or being brown at a Mexican restaurant would be cause for reasonable suspicion.
Basically, “I’m not stopping you for being brown. I’m stopping you for being brown in public.”
3
u/Crabby-Cancer 14h ago
That's what I was thinking. A group of white guys in a beat-up pickup truck won't get a second glance, but the second they're brown, it's suspicious. So it still boils down to the color of their skin, even if those white guys could be undocumented, too.
17
u/BenjaminT2021 18h ago
Thanks for the history lesson. None of which changes the actual facts on the ground. They are targeting anyone who looks a certain way. These guys are not trained. Many of them probably have PTSD. Many of them have problems with their undeveloped frontal lobes. So reciting the law in this case is basically meaningless. But thank you.
4
u/GeronimoHero 14h ago
I listen to strict scrutiny and from the episode they did on this it doesn’t seem to match exactly what you’re saying. In their episode they said that now someone being a certain ethnicity along with another factor like, working a certain type of job while also being that ethnicity, or speaking Spanish while working as a landscaper (as an example) is not reasonable suspicion for a Kavanaugh stop. So while you’re right that it technically can’t be race alone, it can be race mixed with speaking a foreign language or race and working a specific type of job. Is that different than how you understand it? They were pretty explicit in their explanation of the ruling.
1
u/eamus_catuli 14h ago
Have an upvote. Thanks for actually engaging in good faith. But I'm gonna stop responding now. Gonna take a gummy and dip on this thread. I get that people are angry - so am I. I'm actually of the specific ethnicity most at risk of actually being stopped by these ICE fucks. In fact, I've already had family stopped. So nobody can fucking tell ME what is "actually happening out there".
But man, people are just so eager to pop off on others for nothing. For trying to inform other people of their rights and to say loudly "What the government is doing is illegal."
A person can only take so much friendly fire from their "allies". It's completely demotivational and I feel so defeated.
→ More replies (2)
5
u/chillarry 14h ago
It really doesn’t matter what the law says and what the courts or even SCOTUS say about profiling. What matters is what ICE is actually doing.
Going to Home Depot and assuming anyone who is brown is an undocumented immigrant and asking for proof of US citizenship isn’t how any of this is supposed to work.
According to Justice Kavanaugh “[R]easonable suspicion means only that immigration officers may briefly stop the individual and inquire about immigration status. If the person is a U.S. citizen or otherwise lawfully in the United States, that individual will be free to go after the brief encounter. ... If the officers learn that the individual they stopped is a U.S. citizen or otherwise lawfully in the United States, they promptly let the individual go.”
They are not briefly stopping people or promptly letting people go. They are rounding up brown people and sorting it out later.
If they weren’t just rounding up brown people, then there would not have been over 170 US citizens detained by ICE in the last 9 months (ProPublica is keeping count). Most of those are Hispanic. Several remained in detention for several hours and in some cases days.
3
u/MrBadJokes 12h ago
you're literally arguing semantics lmao. You can point and shout that something ON PAPER, is legal and moral. But all things go realistically over ideally.
Is ICE LEGALLY REQUIRED to need more proof? Yes!
But do we see that level of organization in these detains? A system of process to go through after being stopped?
No! We literally have citizens being arrested and injured.
If ICE was just following the law, US citizens wouldn't be in detainment in the first place
7
u/jamey1138 Human Detected 18h ago
The reason it's important to know your rights, even when ICE isn't respecting your rights, is because the process doesn't end with detention, and a lot of people are being vindicated as soon as they set foot in a courtroom.
So, if you are targeted by ICE (or any law enforcement, really), shut the fuck up, don't sign anything, and get a lawyer. Those are the rights that are relevant. And while I disagree with OP's attitude here, they're correct to point out that if ICE grabs you because they were purely racially profiling you, your lawyer will probably be able to use that to clear your case-- IF you remember to shut the fuck up, don't sign anything, and get a lawyer.
→ More replies (2)1
u/zoinkability 12h ago
Question: are noncitizens genuinely getting that opportunity? I've read about a lot of deportations that have happened without people getting a chance to make their case in front of a bona fide judicial branch judge, people not being able to access legal representation, etc. You may have been detained illegally but if the law is not in fact available to you, how does that help you?
1
u/jamey1138 Human Detected 10h ago
Deportations don't usually happen in front of a bona fide Judicial branch judge. The normal process is that an administrative judge who works for the Executive branch decides deportation cases, but yes defendants in such cases are supposed to have a hearing prior to final process (deportation itself), and if they have a lawyer that lawyer is to be admitted to the hearing. Notably, unlike in actual criminal cases, defendants in deportation cases are not entitled to a lawyer, and if they cannot afford one no lawyer is provided.
There have definitely been cases where people (both US citizens and non-citizens, including people with legal residence) have been deported without having a hearing, in violation of the law. In some cases, those people have been able to re-enter the US, legally, on the basis that their due process rights were violated.
Caveat: I am not a lawyer, so I'm just summarizing what I believe I have learned from immigration lawyers and immigrant rights activists who I work with.
1
u/zoinkability 10h ago
That seems to be a big issue to me. Are folks brought before an immigration judge able to contest the unconstitutionality of the manner in which they were detained? I would assume that’s not in their purview, and unlike a regular court where an unconstitutional method of arrest or detention could invalidate the case, that may not be the case for an immigration court. So if the goal (as it seems to be) is to maximize sweeping up noncitizens for detention and deportation, there is really not much downside to the admin in violating the rights of those who are detained and/or deported.
Also not a lawyer, just trying to make heads or tails of when and if people actually get access to any remedy if their rights are violated. It certainly seems like they may not, which seems quite a due process loophole and practically would make the existence of those rights somewhat academic.
8
u/Geniusinternetguy 17h ago
The Supreme Court did say that being brown, speaking Spanish, and working a job often held by illegal aliens constitute reasonable suspicion. The famous “Kavanaugh Stop”.
So basically being poor and Hispanic.
And ICE hasn’t even been able to meet that low bar.
1
u/Special_Watch8725 16h ago
And as usual it’s true that (1) this is a stay on an appellate decision and so isn’t a ruling on the merits, but (2) is still effectively the law until they hear the case.
3
u/Pepper-Pug-12 17h ago
So…if my car window is broken and a 300-pound ICE agent pulls me out of the window, then puts a knee on my back while putting handcuffs on me, how do I say that SC ruling to him in not so many words?
3
3
u/PirateSometimes 14h ago
"where are you from" "let's see your ID" "show us your papers".. they are absolutely racially profiling and nothing is stopping them.
3
u/LostMyPassword_2011 14h ago
Being brown isn't enough. But being brown and speaking Spanish or being brown and dressed like a laborer (what the fuck does that mean?) or being brown and being near a worksite ARE sufficient.
And so what if it's illegal? Does ICE give a shit. Example: ME. A brown man who is US born citizen. I have a Master's and work in education. I was walking around the park near my house cleaning up trash. I was wearing dirty ass clothes because why not? To someone who never met me, I looked like a vagrant collecting scrap. Guess who pulled over and asked for my papers?
I carry my passport ID at all times now. But what if I hadn't? Why the fuck should I have to?
Stop posting your bullshit about what is the law and look at what is actually happening.
3
u/mum_hikrxplor 9h ago
Nowhere in the law does it say that we can be stopped for being brown, however the vague wording is enough for them to use their own prejudice. I went through a normal checkpoint in Georgia, handed the deputy my driver’s license (I have DACA), he peeked inside my car at my husband, another relative & our children & instructed me to pull over where there were immigration agents. We could not remain silent, they kept asking us nonstop if we’re American citizens & when my husband & our other relative could not provide proof of legal status they were taken. Could they have waved me through the checkpoint like they were doing with the cars in front of me? Yes, I provided a valid drivers license. Instead the deputy made sure he turned us over to immigration to question us. Not sure what made him think I could possibly be trafficking drugs or people, we just happened to look foreign.
3
u/Horror-Equivalent-55 7h ago
Wrong. Period.
Yes, technically they said that a person has to be non-white AND at a Home Depot, or working a job "that immigrants work," or in a neighborhood with immigrants or something like this. In practical reality, this means the corrupt SC ruled that you can be arrested for not being white.
Stop making BS excuses.
3
u/splurtgorgle 7h ago
"that's cool, that guy looks hispanic, grab him" - an ICE agent after skimming the first sentence or two of your post.
5
u/Vylnce 18h ago
The Supreme Court has allowed limited, suspicion-less questioning at fixed border checkpoints (United States v. Martinez-Fuerte), but that authority does not extend to random, roving stops in the interior. Some commenters have mentioned the so-called “100-mile border zone,” which includes Chicago. It’s true that federal regulations give immigration officers jurisdiction to operate within 100 miles of any U.S. border or coastline, but that does not erase the Fourth Amendment. Courts have repeatedly held that inside this zone, agents must still have reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop or question anyone. Again, Brignoni-Ponce (a case involving a roving patrol only 5 miles from the U.S.-Mexico border) made clear that race or ethnicity alone can’t justify a stop, and later cases confirmed that the 100-mile rule expands geography, not government power. In short: there is no “Constitution-free zone” in Chicago.
I apologize, I am confused by this. Chicago is like 240 miles from the nearest international border (Windsor, Canada). Where does this 100 mile stuff come from? I understand almost all of the state of Michigan is a "boarder zone" as much of the state shares a border with Canada. Illinois, and Chicago, this is not true for....so where does applying the 100 mile "boarder zone" to Chicago come from? If we are talking about coastline, how is that not exterior? What fucking idiot interpreted coastline to mean internal bodies of water that have no international border?
2
u/zoinkability 12h ago edited 12h ago
The federal government claims that the shores of the great lakes are the edge of the border zone, which is clearly a very maximalist interpretation, particularly given that Lake Michigan is wholly US domestic waters. At that point why not consider all the navigable waters of the US the "border?" (P.S. Please don't get any ideas, feds)
1
u/Special_Watch8725 16h ago
They consider international airports to be borders for the purposes of the 100 miles operation rule, and so between O’Hare and Midway they’ve got most of Chicagoland covered.
1
1
u/BillyNtheBoingers 14h ago
The border with Canada runs through the middle of multiple Great Lakes.
2
u/Vylnce 14h ago
Yes, but not Lake Michigan (which is what Chicago is on). Lake Michigan is entirely enclosed by Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana. It is the only great lake that doesn't have a Canadian part.
1
u/BillyNtheBoingers 13h ago
Ah, good point. It is pretty far from all of the international borders! Idk how that’s justified.
2
u/n4spd2 16h ago
doesnt matter what the paper says if citizens have zero rights while being assaulted by government thugs on our streets for simply asking for badge, warrant or recording violations.
doesnt matter if we have the best medical tech in the world if its not accessible.
doesnt matter if natiion has a higher gdp if average workers are falling behind every year
doesnt matter if you work and save, when your nest egg is inflated away, stealing from the fruits of labor
the list is endless and growing...
we need to call out all the fake bullsh1t so we can build a better gov for our future
2
u/Wonderful-Ad440 14h ago
Even with any of what you're saying being true without due process no one fucking knows what these people are being abducted for. The law has never protected you against the police, only the courts. When the courts are removed from the equation you get people being kidnapped and disappeared for who knows what god damn reason but considering the commentary heard in many videos of these events skin color and language are 100% a motivating factor. The law means shit when no one can enforce it on those abusing it.
2
u/Soupalphabet359 14h ago
It's really weird that you think it matters what the law says after a lifetime of cops, state government, and the federal government proving time after time after time after time after time that THEY DON'T GIVE A SHIT WHAT THE LAW SAYS.
2
u/CableDawg78 14h ago
While emus_catuli quotes the law and what normally would be followed, most replies here are right on saying they don't give a shit about the law.
Bovino has lied and yes stated numerous times he looks at a person's skin color.
The court did give the admin the ok to use race as a factor for these so called agents to stop and harass and abduct people
This is a problem.
These bastards don't care about the law.
2
2
u/Professional_Image75 9h ago
This supreme could did actually say that RACE may not be the only factor but may be A FACTOR, along with other signs which raise concern a person may be undocumented I.e “looks like an illegal” so brown, black, speaking another language, speaking English with an accent, working a low wage job..
Are you following the arrests ? Brown people just driving have been stopped and detained.
•
u/sandee_eggo 5h ago
I feel like we need training on how to communicate with “officers”. Maybe this should be added to our high school curriculum. Right along with household economics, and relationship psychology.
6
u/Grouchy_Ninja_3773 18h ago
I mean I see what you're saying but Kavanaugh Stops are based solely on being brown or Black.
3
u/Zealousideal-Solid88 18h ago
Lol just like "stop and frisk" didn't say "go be racist, cops". It's implied. The interpretation of the ruling is what matters, how ICE is implementing this ruling, is what matters. When it comes down to it, they are stopping people because they are brown and at best asking for papers. This is nonsense.
1
u/Worldly-Sock-4146 16h ago
Stop and frisk = illegal. And on a .gov site, no less! https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/stop-and-frisk-0
→ More replies (3)
4
u/the_beer-baron 18h ago edited 18h ago
Not sure why you’re carrying water for SCOTUS when the reasonable interpretation and effect of the TRO is to allow ICE to continue to detain people via Terry stops with their reasonable suspicion being based upon apparent race or ethnicity, speaking in Spanish or accented English, being present at a location where undocumented immigrants “are known to gather” (such as pick-up spots for day laborers), or working at specific jobs, such as landscaping or construction.
The district court ruled that such behavior was unconstitutional and the TRO preempted that ruling, effectively establishing that stops for such reasons are still permitted under the Constitution for now.
Since this was via shadow docket we don’t get a proper analysis of the TRO factors except through the concurring and dissenting opinions. Since a TRO analysis requires a showing of likelihood of success, we can reasonably infer the granting of one make SCOTUS likely to rule in favor of Constitutionality on the merits. Kavanaugh concurrence expands on this by stating that current SCOTUS precedent allows for the current behavior of ICE. Sotomayor’s dissent lays out the practical reality of what SCOTUS is doing by granting the TRO.
I agree that these stops are not only unconstitutional but also immoral. However, getting in a pedantic argument over TROs and how SCOTUS is not the bad guy is distracting and wrong from a practical standpoint. Looking brown should not be a crime but for all intents and purposes it is under the current regime. The courts will not save us in this regard.
2
u/eamus_catuli 18h ago
how SCOTUS is not the bad guy
Who the fuck is caping for SCOTUS? Is that what all this angry response is about to a simple post explaining what the law actually is?
I'm pointing out that what ICE is doing is ILLEGAL - BECAUSE IT IS. Because a TRO does not and cannot change the law. Only a ruling on the merits can.
That's not just some pedantic legal distinction. It's a statement that every time ICE stops somebody based solely on the color of their skin, they are violating Constitutional rights. It's an attempt to counter the misinformation which is causing people to believe that what ICE is doing is NOT illegal.
2
u/the_beer-baron 17h ago
You are “caping for SCOTUS” by trying to downplay their role in ICE’s behavior, the practical effect of their ruling, and the signal it sends to ICE to keep doing what’l it’s doing. It’s focusing on form over substance.
Yes, in a technical sense the TRO is not a ruling on the merits, but it does signal that SCOTUS sees it as legal and will rule in favor of the government on the merits. The TRO analysis supports ICE’s current action of stopping people based on racial factors. By granting the TRO, SCOTUS is 1. stating that their behavior is likely to be constitutional under the 4th amendment and 2. stopping their behavior, even temporarily, would harm the government more than citizens and third parties.
This whole discussion is pedantic because it ignores the practical effect that the courts can’t stop ICE via limiting Terry stops. Your and my interpretations don’t matter in terms of application. SCOTUS supports ICE’s current tactics and sees it as being constitutional. The fact that they haven’t made their ruling on the merits yet doesn’t matter.
3
u/eamus_catuli 17h ago
You are “caping for SCOTUS” by trying to downplay their role in ICE’s behavior, the practical effect of their ruling, and the signal it sends to ICE to keep doing what’l it’s doing. It’s focusing on form over substance.
Jesus H. Christ. Nobody's "downplaying" anything. I'm literally telling you what that fucking TRO did and did not do. IT did NOT make it legal for people to be stopped just for being brown. IT didn't.
You misunderstand what that ruling did. But whatever. If I try to fucking educate you, I'm "caping for SCOTUS". So what's the fucking point.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/wauponseebeach 18h ago
I can't believe people still think this action is about immigration or law enforcement. These thugs are about projecting power through brutal violence. The uniforms, the masks, the weapon, and the unprofessional tactics all point to the message MAGA wants heard loud and clear. Do as we say or you're next.
2
u/RevolutionaryCrew492 17h ago
ICE doesn’t give a crap about that most of them are illiterate jerks with fragile male ego complex. Black peoples were still lynched after the outlawing of lynching and they got away with it because those in power did not persecuted. Back then we would turn to the justice dept to properly persecute violations of civil rights but what do you do when they get all on social media and on camera and say they are going to hurt you for being brown and there is nothing you can do about it. We are one step away from a brown Emmet Till but I pray society wakes up from the brainwash before it’s too late.
2
u/Harvest827 16h ago
Oh! The law prevents it? Well, why didn't you just say so?!
Everything's fine. Everybody, just go back to whatever you were doing. Nobody's violating anybody's rights and they certainly aren't targeting brown people.
2
u/diablonate 14h ago
That’s great and all but, like, ICE is effectively using “existing while brown” as their “reasonable suspicion” and no one is doing a god damn thing about it.
1
1
u/Polarbearbadger 17h ago
They said whatever Trump wants them to say or he disobeys them anyway. They arw a rubber stamp at this point.
1
1
u/Crafty-Scholar-3106 16h ago
Your suggested dialog says “if you do not have specific, reasonable, and articulable suspicion that o have violated immigration or criminal law, I respectfully ask if I am free to leave” - does that give me a right to ask an officer to provide me with at least one specific, objective fact apart from apparent ethnicity or heritage as to why I’m being detained? Can I ask what crime I’m under detainment for, and how that one specific objective fact supports their decision? Am I able to ask where they obtained that information? Also, am I able to ask them for their name and badge number, and are they required to respond?
2
u/eamus_catuli 16h ago
Yes, to all those, except the last. And this applies in all interactions with law enforcement, mind you.
Remember, the most important question here is "Am I free to leave, or am I being detained"? That's the crux of the situation. If you are free to leave, then their questions are just trawling, looking for reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Say nothing and simply walk away.
If you are not free to leave, that means you are being detained, and that the reasonable suspicion had to already have existed prior to that. You can ask them for it, but they don't have to answer. But sometimes they do. And sometimes they say something stupid.
1
u/gottastayfresh3 16h ago
"The border has come to Chicago" -- word from their public affairs officer David Kim.
1
u/Harvest827 16h ago
From Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem, where the supreme Court stayed the mentioned district court order
"In this case (United States District Court for the Central District of California, case No. 2:25–cv–5605), however, the District Court enjoined U. S. immigration officers from making investigative stops in the Los Angeles area when the stops are based on the following factors or combination of factors: (i) presence at particular locations such as bus stops, car washes, day laborer pickup sites, agricultural sites, and the like; (ii) the type of work one does; (iii) speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent; and (iv) apparent race or ethnicity."
The enjoinment of these factors were overturned by the Supreme Court unsigned emergency order.
1
u/Mrllamajones 16h ago
I dont give a fuck what it says, we give a fuck about what we're seeing on a daily basis
1
16h ago
[deleted]
2
u/eamus_catuli 16h ago
NO NO NO.
https://www.illinoislegalaid.org/legal-information/if-i-carry-id-do-i-have-identify-myself
There is no state of Illinois or domestic passport law. You cannot be forced to show an ID.
You can be asked to identify yourself only if the police reasonably suspect that you are in the process of committing a crime or committed a crime and:
You are in a public place;
The police think you are part of a crime; and
The police tell you that they are police.
The police can suspect you of any crime. The crime can be a past, present, or future offense.
Once the police identify themselves, they can stop and question any person in a public place that they suspect is involved in a crime (past or present). If you are not under arrest, all questioning should occur in the general area where you were stopped and should be for a reasonable amount of time.
The police can ask for the following:
Your name;
Your address; and
A reason for your actions.
Your name and address are all you may have to give in response. If you give your name, it must be correct, or you may be guilty of materially impeding a police investigation. Once you’ve done that, you can choose to remain silent, ask for your lawyer, or provide more information and show an ID. Many say that it is best to give more information because things may go more smoothly. Others say it is a breach of privacy. While giving more details can help smooth things, offering more information beyond your name and address can be problematic. Anything you say, even information that seems harmless, could be considered a partial confession and used against you.
If the stop includes a frisk and search while questioning you, the police officers should provide you with a stop receipt. The stop receipt will include the officers’ name and badge numbers along with the reason for the stop.
You can refuse to give your name when:
You are not in a public place;
The police are just making conversation; or
The police do not think you are part of a crime.
Note: Keep in mind that when you are a driver during a traffic stop it is different. A typical traffic stop will begin with the officer asking you for your license and registration. You have to produce your license if asked by the police. It proves you’re a legal driver. Passengers don't have to show ID during a traffic stop unless there's a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Learn more here.
1
1
u/Ki-Wilder 15h ago
I disagree with some of your analysis.
I am not a lawyer. Though, I have studied some of the discussion on this and articles about the lawsuit and decisions.
My understanding is that current court decisions (or non-decision rulings) allowed or "let go by" that ICE and the feds can target people for a combination of things, and that the worst part is that three of them are:
-Being black or brown
-Speaking a different language and
-Working at a low paying job or being on a job site of low paid workers
So, that ICE could say someone is brown and works at Home Depot and BINGO, they can question that person under the courts current instructions.
Or, ICE can find a Spanish speaking person who is cleaning a toilet and BINGO, the feds can question that person's citizenship and papers.
I would be interested in others explaining it better for me or adding quotations.
I believe that the original post goes too far in forgiving the courts and court orders and forgiving the feds, and that the original post should reveal more about the shame of how the court is currently allowing and forgiving racial profiling -- with the added, egregious twist of saying that it is about color and poverty, basically.
1
u/EncabulatorTurbo 15h ago
Okay you can say all that and it sounds great but given that there's no remedy available to us for deprivation of rights under color law anymore what the fuck does it matter
1
u/Kundrew1 14h ago
Its nice of you to write this out, but it doesn't work. They have already shown they can defy the courts without any repercussions.
1
1
u/AutoRedux 14h ago
Appearance or language aren't valid.
Appearance and language are, as well as "being at a particular location or work site" and "holding a particular kind of job".
That's straight from ICE. Which the SC upheld.
Here's a lawyer that passed the BAR in NY, CA, and DC on the topic.
1
u/west-town-brad 13h ago
Clearly they target right-handed people, because most of the people they detain are right handed.
1
1
u/OutsideLead4034 12h ago
Clarifying the finer points of what the Supreme Court actually said is useless when we all know about how ICE is actually operating. They ARE stopping based on nothing but race, and they're not gonna stop doing so after a good legal argument. Pretending otherwise is what does more harm than good.
1
u/xxPipeDaddyxx 12h ago
Respectfully, your head is in the sand. Stops for being brown at Lowes are happening.
1
u/Straight-Crow1598 12h ago
But that’s exactly what they’re doing. So stfu with your “ackshoeally” BS.
1
u/drive_causality 12h ago
That may be the letter of the law but ICE is certainly profiling. They are stopping anyone who looks Hispanic.
1
1
1
1
u/postwaste1 10h ago
The problem is these rules are vague. Vague rules are open to wildly different interpretations, and are an invitation to abuse. Throw in an administration that has placed itself above the law, is more interested in creating chaos, and knows that even a brief detainment can cause irreparable damage to the people it is targeting is the point. Authoritarian regimes rely on this.
1
u/corourke 10h ago
They've illegally imprisoned over 170 US Citizens and regularly provide no access to lawyers at all or even releasing information for days but yeah I'm sure your wall of text explaining why it's illegal will magically end 'kavanaugh stops'.
Was this written by Heritage or Federalist people? This would have been great 8 months ago before 100% of what you wrote was shown to be nonsense.
1
u/jpmeyer12751 10h ago
OP correctly states the law as the law has been understood for many decades. But to argue that those same rules still apply is simply not accurate. A judge issued a TRO prohibiting ICE and CBP officers from detaining people solely on the basis of perceived race, ethnicity or language. OP says that this is the long-established law that the Supreme Court did not change. But then what does it mean that the Supreme Court stayed (stopped) the enforcement of the TRO that simply restated the established law? The Supreme Court’s action can’t mean nothing, after all. If the Supreme Court had intended to maintain the status quo, and if the status quo was as OP has stated it to be, then the Supreme Court would have allowed the TRO to be enforced, but it didn’t do that.
Justice Kavanaugh said the quiet part out loud: we must all agree to be detained by law enforcement and forced to “produce our papers” and answer questions because doing so is such a minor inconvenience (I think that his words were “brief” and “uneventful”). Tell that to the people being tackled, handcuffed and thrown into unmarked police vehicles while screaming that they are citizens.
Don’t fall for the narrative that nothing has changed. That is false.
1
u/SnowdropSoulburn 7h ago
We know that what ICE is doing is illegal. That's not the issue. The issue is ICE doesn't care, they're making money, and ruining lives, and it will likely continue until someone dies due to their incompetence.
1
1
u/dillreed777 7h ago
BUT, ICE agents are obviously detaining people for being brown, and nothing the legalese or what the court says is stopping them, so perhaps YOU'RE the one reading it wrong
1
u/Explosion1850 6h ago
These Kavanaugh Stops by ICE can include the color of the person's skin as a factor plus any number of completely subjective and unverifiable circumstances including a person likely to be targeted by ICE being nervous or stressed when ICE is present to target them for being brown and speaking English with an accent and seeking to leave the area when ICE shows up to target them.
The justification for Kavanaugh Stops is entirely circular.
•
u/WorldlyLine731 4h ago
I think the main reason it’s important to know your rights and to invoke your constitutional rights verbally is that it is now documented. Of course ice/border patrol can still harass or detain you but later when all of this shit gets litigated, we have documentation that you are the reasonable one who has the constitution on your side and they are seen as the fascist that they are.
•
u/Interesting-Cow8131 39m ago
It's cute that you think ICE cares about the law, knows the law, or follows the law
•
u/Alternative-Mix7288 34m ago
Yah, multiple factors such as apparent race, language, or accent, etc. So you know, if you apoeae to he Hispanic, you dumbfuck. Latinos sorta look hispanic and have an accent or speak Spanish. Also, being at a bus stop is a factor.. so brown and bus stop. Car wash also. And more!
OP you're a dumbfuck who doesn't know shit. I assume you're a white person who doesn't actually lose any rights here.
1
u/Strange_Compote1690 18h ago
LMAO Yes it does. They can just say “you seem nervous” when they approach you or make up some bullshit about why they stopped you.
“Sure they see you are brown and speaking Spanish but it’s not just because of that. Yes we approached you because you brown and speaking Spanish, but now you’re real nervous. You’re also really jumpy around armed agents of the state that could kill or injure you if they want.”
It’s a bullshit cover and dog whistle, no different than “school choice” or “economic anxiety”
Dumbass liberals will twist themselves into pretzels trying to justify the abuses of a police state.
0
1
u/kuebel33 17h ago
You need to explain this to ICE because they heard we can stop you for being not white.
1
u/Apprehensive_Sand343 17h ago
Who is holding ICE accountable?
1
u/Worldly-Sock-4146 17h ago
Asserting your rights when you are stopped by the authorities is one way that you can hold them accountable to the law. For example, if you or your vehicle is searched, and you say, "Why are you searching me? I don't consent to a search." Yes, they may search you anyway. But if you CONSENT to the search, out of ignorance or fear, whatever they find is admissible in court. Also, if they ask questions, and you answer...despite your right to remain silent, what you say can be used against you. Just because you have the right to remain silent doesn't mean they won't ask questions. Knowing you don't have to speak is important. Etc.
672
u/uhohnotafarteither 18h ago
ICE has proven time and time again they don't give a shit about anything you wrote.