Which justices voted in favor of the September 8 2025 ICE ruling and what were their arguments?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Was this fact-check helpful?
1. Summary of the results
The September 8, 2025 Supreme Court ruling in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo (case 25A169) involved a 5-4 decision that granted the government's application for a stay of a lower court injunction restricting ICE operations in Los Angeles. Based on the analyses, only two justices' positions are clearly documented:
Justice Brett Kavanaugh voted in favor of the government's stay application, serving as the author of what appears to be the majority opinion [1]. His arguments centered on several key legal principles:
- The government demonstrated a "sufficient showing to obtain a stay pending appeal" and met the critical factors for interim relief [1]
- The government showed a "fair prospect of success on the merits" and likelihood of irreparable harm if the injunction remained in place [2]
- Immigration officers may briefly stop individuals for questioning if they have reasonable suspicion of illegal presence, with factors like location, type of work, and language spoken contributing to reasonable suspicion [1]
- The District Court's injunction would "substantially hamper the Government's efforts to enforce immigration laws" in the Los Angeles area [1]
- Kavanaugh emphasized the "narrow role of judges in immigration cases," stating that judges should ensure Executive Branch actions remain within constitutional and statutory bounds rather than making policy decisions [2]
Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a strong dissent, characterizing the majority's decision as problematic on constitutional grounds [1] [2]. Her arguments included:
- The government's conduct constitutes "racial profiling" and the court's order enables such profiling during immigration operations [1]
- The decision "risks turning Latinos into second-class citizens" by allowing seizure of anyone who "looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low-wage job" [3] [1]
- She described the ruling as "yet another grave misuse of our emergency docket" [2]
- The decision effectively declares that "all Latinos, U.S. citizens or not, who work low-wage jobs are fair game to be seized at any time" [2]
The ruling puts on hold a lower court order that had prohibited federal agents from making immigration stops based on factors including apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or accented English, presence at certain locations, and specific types of employment [2].
2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints
The original question lacks several crucial pieces of context that emerge from the analyses:
- The Department of Homeland Security celebrated this as a "major victory," arguing the ruling is based on longstanding Fourth Amendment precedent regarding "reasonable suspicion" [4]
- The decision specifically affects Los Angeles area operations, not nationwide ICE enforcement [1] [2]
- Civil rights organizations like the American Immigration Council strongly oppose the ruling, arguing it "clears the way for racial profiling during immigration raids and sweeps" and will lead to targeting of Latinos regardless of citizenship status [3]
- The case involves emergency docket procedures, which Sotomayor criticized as being misused [2]
- The ruling allows federal officers to "more freely make immigration stops" by removing previous restrictions on the factors they could consider [3] [2]
3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement
The original question itself appears neutral and factual, seeking specific information about judicial votes and reasoning. However, the question's framing as an "ICE ruling" rather than using the proper case name (Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo) could potentially oversimplify the legal complexity involved.
The analyses reveal significant bias in how different sources frame the decision. Government sources like DHS characterize it as upholding established legal precedent [4], while immigration advocacy organizations describe it as enabling unconstitutional racial profiling [3]. The American Immigration Council's characterization particularly emphasizes the racial profiling aspects, while DHS emphasizes legal precedent and operational necessity.
Notably, the analyses only identify the positions of two out of nine justices, leaving the reasoning of the other seven justices undocumented, which represents a significant gap in the available information about this consequential ruling.