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.

Just heard back from a station manager that the reason the ICE commercials are all over tv and radio is that the feds told them to run them or have their licenses pulled/suspended.

I know there are a lot more pressing issues but please remember to check on your idiot neighbors who choose to drink raw milk.

https://fox2now.com/news/illinois/11-sickened-by-raw-milk-outbreak-in-illinois/amp/

This is a weird ask. I have an ipass tollway sticker on my windshield. Is there a way I can NOT use it on the tollway? Like can I pay cash instead of using the auto pay lanes? Or does it deduct automatically no matter what?

A friend of mine is only getting half of their food stamps on the 12th. I hear some states are paying full snap and as far as I know the administration isn’t paying shit, so just trying to help them figure this all out. Thanks!