What did the 2025 Supreme Court orders say about ICE stops in Los Angeles and why did the ACLU criticize them?

1. What the Supreme Court’s emergency order actually did

The Court granted the government’s emergency application to lift or stay the district judge’s temporary restraining order that had barred ICE from making investigative stops in the Los Angeles area based on a set of factors the judge found were being used impermissibly by agents . That stay is an interim procedural measure — it does not decide the ultimate merits of the constitutional claims — but it restores the government’s ability to carry out the challenged “roving” enforcement operations while the case proceeds .

2. What kinds of stops the lower court had restricted

U.S. District Judge Maame E. Frimpong had issued orders after finding a “mountain of evidence” that federal agents were conducting stops and arrests using combinations of factors such as apparent ethnicity, language, where people congregate (like day-labor sites or car washes), or type of work, and that those tactics swept up U.S. citizens and denied access to counsel . The district court’s TRO aimed to prohibit stops that relied on that constellation of indicators as likely an unconstitutional practice .

3. How the Supreme Court’s order changed the legal landscape, briefly

By putting the TRO on hold, the Supreme Court allowed ICE to resume broad enforcement practices in Southern California, and at least one justice’s concurrence signaled that apparent ethnicity can be a “relevant factor” when combined with others — a formulation that critics say lowers the barrier to stops that resemble racial profiling . The stay was issued by a 6–3 divided Court and was handled on the emergency or “shadow” docket, meaning it was a time-limited procedural ruling rather than a full opinion resolving the constitutional issues .

4. Why the ACLU and advocates called the order dangerous

The ACLU argued the stay removes immediate judicial protections designed to prevent indiscriminate and racially motivated stops that had already swept up U.S. citizens and denied detainees access to counsel, describing the Supreme Court action as a “devastating setback” that exposes communities to terror and constitutional violations . ACLU leaders warned the order enables targeting “because of their race, how they speak, the jobs they work, or just being at a bus stop,” and framed the move as legitimizing tactics that civil-rights plaintiffs had documented in Los Angeles operations .

5. The government’s stated rationale and alternative legal view

The Justice Department told the Supreme Court that the district judge’s restrictions amounted to a “straitjacket” that would hamper law enforcement and that officers need flexibility to carry out immigration enforcement, a position the Court’s majority appeared to accept in staying the TRO . Supporters argue that stops based on a mix of factors have long been part of immigration enforcement and that any mistaken detentions can be remedied later in court; critics counter that ex post remedies are cold comfort for people unlawfully stopped, detained, or traumatized .

6. Stakes and next steps in the litigation

The stay is temporary and the underlying lawsuit — brought by the ACLU and other advocacy groups alleging unconstitutional stops, denial of counsel, and racial targeting — will continue in district court with a preliminary-injunction hearing set subsequently, meaning a final legal resolution could still reinstate limits or confirm broader authority . Meanwhile, the political consequences ripple beyond Los Angeles as officials and advocates warn the ruling could shape enforcement practices nationwide while the courts sort it out .