Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a 6-3 decision in the case of Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem that overruled decisions by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California, Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong.

The initial decisions said that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents could not stop people based on their accents, their speaking Spanish, the jobs they hold, the locations where they gather or their ethnicity and/or race. The actions by ICE agents were ruled to be in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

However, the Supreme Court said that ICE agents can stop anyone in Los Angeles for reasons the lower courts ruled unconstitutional. In his concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said, “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.” Kavanaugh also advocated for the continuation of the efforts due to his claim that 10% of illegal immigrants in the U.S. are residing in the Los Angeles metro area, and suggested that it’s necessary in this case.

In her dissenting opinion on page 12, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said, “That decision is yet another grave misuse of our emergency docket. 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. Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent.”
Students and others have been paying attention to the Trump administration’s policies around immigration.

Elisa Broche Lopez, a senior communication major, said, “There is nothing I can change about being a Hispanic woman—my skin tone, my hair, my features.”

In the current climate, Broche Lopez, filmmaker and editor of the online magazine Horseshoe, said she has changed her behavior.

“I feel compelled to carry my passport and student authorization documents with me everywhere, even though it is strongly advised not to, because of the constant worry that you never know what could happen,” she said.

“I came here determined to thrive, to build a career, and to make my dreams come true. Yet, the idea that all of that could be interrupted just because I ‘look a little brown’ is terrifying.” Connecticut school districts such as Stamford and Norwalk have been working to increase counseling and other resources for students and families to help address these concerns.

Estimates are that ICE has deported nearly 200,000 people from the U.S. since Pres. Donald Trump took office in January. At the current rate, that figure could climb to 300,000 people by the end of the 2025 fiscal year, which would be the most since 2014.

ICE has also been active within Connecticut with various cases, including that of New Haven teenager Esdras R., who was detained at his workplace in July but was later released. In August, there were 65 people arrested by ICE within a span of four days, including in cases outside courthouses in Stamford and Danbury. Another courthouse arrest occurred recently in Hartford.

Beyond Los Angeles, students say they also fear that this ruling could go beyond just ICE agents, but also local law enforcement. “I think that it leads the door open to something more destructive being able to go after people for their race, their employment, is a bad rocky road that will greatly impact the constitutional rights of not just people in our country but citizens that are coming here,” said Jordan Mancuso-Cermola, a sophomore political science major and member of Southington’s Democratic Town Committee (DTC). “It will greatly hurt immigrants that are coming here, and it will impact the way that our country is looked at internationally.”

Connecticut U.S. House Rep. John Larson responded to the ruling in a press release last Monday.

“Trump’s so-called ‘border czar’ even bragged back in July that someone’s ‘physical appearance’ was sufficient evidence to detain them. Where in the Constitution does it say that?” Larson said. While the plaintiffs in this case can appeal the stay, it is likely to not be overturned.