SCOTUS Lifts Restrictions on ICE Stops in LA

0:00Support for this show comes from Public.com. If you're actively involved in your portfolio, you probably catch yourself repeating the same actions. Buying the dip, manually sweeping idle cash, putting on a hedge. On Public, you can now create AI agents that handle all these tasks on your behalf. Just describe what you want to do in plain English. Like, if the VIX hits 25, buy a put option on the S &P 500. Or, if my cash balance goes above$20 ,000, move the excess into my direct index. You approve the workflow and your agent handles the rest. Monitoring the market, watching for your conditions, and executing your strategies exactly as defined.

0:38An investing platform driven by your intent, not just your clicks. You can also get full read and write access to your account via the public API. Go to public.com slash market and fund your account in five minutes or less. That's public.com slash market. Paid for by Public Investing. Brokered services by Open to the Public Investing, Inc., Member FINRA and SIPC. Advisory services by Public Advisors, LLC, SEC Registered Advisor. Complete disclosures available at public.com slash disclosures. They're back live across North America.

1:20Guns and Roses Tour 2026.

1:26Get tickets now at LiveNation.com.

1:36Don't miss Guns N' Roses. And now, another appliance triumph from our friends at Grand Appliance. With three kids, I'm always cramming the washer full. So when we needed a new laundry set, I asked the experts at Grand Appliance for a big capacity washer with a dryer that could keep up. They recommended Electrolux, and we love it. Advanced cleaning features with a massive dryer that gets everything dried the first time? Yes, please! Sounds like another perfect match from the Grand Team. Shop GrandAppliance.com

2:12This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio. We know that this is simply un-American. But as enraging as the news is for many Angelenos and people across the country, let me make this very clear for the press and to our country that we will not allow the Supreme Court or anyone to divide us. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass slammed the Supreme Court's emergency ruling on Monday that lifted a federal judge's order that barred ICE agents from stopping people solely on the basis of their race, language, job or location. The ruling was six to three down ideological lines, and the conservative majority didn't provide an explanation for their decision.

3:04But immigration advocates say it means the court has basically legalized racial profiling. Immigration agents are now being given the power to profile, stop, detain, and arrest people because of the color of their skin, the language they speak, or the work that they do. 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, wrote Justice Sotomayor. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a blistering dissent for the court's liberals, writing that she would not stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, and pointing out that the reasoning behind the court's entirely unexplained order is anyone's guess.

3:57My guest is David Harris, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh Law School and an expert in racial profiling. David, under the Fourth Amendment, when can law enforcement agents stop someone? People can be stopped by the police under the Fourth Amendment when there is reasonable suspicion that a crime is afoot and they may be involved in the crime. And reasonable suspicion is less than probable cause, but it is based on facts and reasons. Now, when we transition from detecting crime to looking at immigration issues, the standard is still reasonable suspicion. There must be facts and there must be proper inferences.

4:39But what we're looking for, of course, is whether a person is in immigration status or not. And you're still looking at reasonable suspicion. So what would those factors be for immigration? The standard is the same. You just have to reference facts. What exactly did the Supreme Court do in its decision on Monday? Well, what they did was to stop the decision of the lower court, stay it. The lower court in Los Angeles had decided that ICE and its law enforcement allies were using factors to stop people that inevitably led to unconstitutional stops. And the lower court had said, you may not use either alone or in combination the factors of somebody's Hispanic or Latino appearance, speaking Spanish or having an accent to speak Spanish, appearance that you are engaged in low-wage work, and being at a location associated with day labor.

5:50And the court said, you can't do this anymore because I can see from the evidence that I took, the judge said, that this is being done in ways that violate the Constitution. And what the Supreme Court did on its emergency docket was to say, no, no, this order will not go into effect. We're holding it for now until we have more time to look at it. And Justice Kavanaugh wrote an opinion that is not a full opinion. It is not for the court saying that he believed that the administration of Trump and his allies who want to be able to use those factors will succeed when they get to a full hearing, that they'll win.

6:37And therefore, ICE and the police allies can go back to using those factors when they stop people to see if they are in violation of the immigration laws. And this called forth some opinions from the other justices, notably Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who said that this was going to lead us in the wrong direction. You'd have people being stopped just for their Hispanic appearance just for speaking Spanish. So is what the court's doing, though the court conveniently, as you mentioned, did not issue a majority opinion, so we don't know why they said this, but are they basically saying, well, racial profiling is okay then?

7:21What they're doing is they're looking back, and this is the best we can tell. We're not really sure because, like you said, there is no opinion. There's been no briefing on this. There's been no argument. There's no full opinion. So we're having to speculate to some extent. But what they seem to be saying, based on the fact that they stopped the lower court's ruling, which would have put a stop to all of this, and Justice Kavanaugh's opinion for himself, is it's okay to use some combination of those four factors, ethnic appearance, Spanish-speaking or accent, appearance of being a low-wage worker in these particular locations.

8:00Now, Kavanaugh was clear on saying you can't just say, well, this person looks Mexican, and that's enough. That wouldn't be alone by itself. But it's a very slippery slope down to exactly that point. Our experience with this sort of thing goes back many years now. I've been studying racial and ethnic profiling for well over 30 years. And we've seen it. We've seen exactly this kind of thing before. We saw it when Arizona enacted the show your paper statute back in about 2008 or so. And Sheriff Joe Arpaio went to town on that. And it was just picking up people because of how they looked and their Spanish speaking or their accent.

8:42And that is racial profiling by any other name. I mean, we don't want to call it that. Fine. But that's what happened. Law enforcement begins to lean on the most obvious factors. And that's what the judge saw in Los Angeles. And that's why the judge stopped them from doing this in the first place. So all of this will move immigration enforcement efforts right up to that very same line. And we will have people getting picked up just for how they look and whether they are Spanish speaking. It's going to happen as night follows day. And I mean, the only way you'll get to see what the officers relied on is if a case is brought, right?

9:23Exactly. And there will be some cases brought, chances are, because one of the other effects of this is going to be that lots of people will be interrogated and even picked up and arrested who are in good order as far as immigration law. That's another thing that we see whenever there is widespread sort of dragnet pulling people in on these very basic factors. They end up making mistakes, law enforcement folks do, when they're allowed to lean on those kind of factors. And we will get a few people who end up in custody, maybe for a few days, maybe for a long time, maybe even getting deported before it can be reversed and they can bring a case.

10:06Justice Kavanaugh says, in his opinion, well, look, if everything's in order, they'll just let you go. And he says it's an important problem in Los Angeles because there's an estimate of, say, 2 million people who are undocumented in Los Angeles. But what he doesn't say is that there are millions more who share those characteristics, who have ethnic features of people from Latin America, who speak Spanish, who have a Spanish accent, and they're going to be swept up in this too. And that's where the cases will probably come from. Justice Kavanaugh said, as for stops of those individuals who are legally in the country, the questioning in those circumstances is typically brief.

10:48And those individuals may promptly go free after making clear to the immigration officers that they are U.S. citizens or otherwise legally in the United States. He doesn't mention that one of the plaintiffs here, Jason Brian Gavidia, who's an American citizen, was stopped by immigration agents, shoved into a metal fence, and his arm was twisted behind his back. All the while that he's shouting, I'm American. I was born in East L.A. And there's video of it that anyone can see on the Internet. Look how you got my hand twisted. I'm American, baby. I don't know. They're literally based off a skin color.

11:26He's not late, but I can show you. I've got a new ID. Gavidia says that he was frightened and the agents took his phone and ID. He was released, but he never did get his ID card back. Yeah, I mean, this is going to happen. This is going to happen more now that everybody can see, including the ICE agents and the police who are helping them, that they've been given the green light. So we will have that happen. It's a certainty. and for Justice Kavanaugh to say, hey, it's all fine as long as you carry your papers with it. Well, I mean, do you carry your birth certificate to work? I mean, does everybody do that?

12:03And even if you do, you might not get those things back. You can be in big trouble even if you have crossed every T and dotted every I and you were born here. So I just really took offense at that. I think it's somebody who never has to confront these problems, making a pronouncement he knows nothing about. So Justice Sotomayor wrote a stinging dissent, quote, 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. She quoted a 1975 case that said it was unconstitutional for the Border Patrol to stop a car and question its occupants when the only ground for suspicion was that they appeared to be of Mexican ancestry.

12:49Does this shadow docket decision contradict that decision, or is it broader? It's a little broader, but again, we're left to speculate because it's on the shadow docket and there's been no full opinion. There was no briefing for the court. There was no argument. But that's a live question for sure. There is an older case that says things like that. You have to go beyond just ethnic appearance. But certainly, it does also say that same case says ethnic appearance counts. And my experience and the experience of those who study this, as I have, is that when that's a factor that is relied on, even with others in the mix, law enforcement leans heavily on it, discounts the other factors that may go in the other direction, and you get mistakes.

13:40And the enforcement itself becomes less efficient. But more than that, people who are in good order will have this imposed on them. And it'll be up to them to prove, no, no, I'm here legally. I was born here, whatever it is, instead of the other way around. Coming up is Chicago Next. This is Bloomberg. Support for the show comes from Public.com. If you're actively involved in your portfolio, you probably catch yourself repeating the same actions. Buying the dip, manually sweeping idle cash, putting on a hedge. On public, you can now create AI agents that handle all these tasks on your behalf. Just describe what you want to do in plain English.

14:19Like, if the VIX hits 25, buy a put option on the S &P 500. Or, if my cash balance goes above$20 ,000, move the excess into my direct index. You approve of the workflow and your agent handles the rest. Monitoring the market, watching for your conditions, and executing your strategies exactly as defined. An investing platform driven by your intent, not just your clicks. You can also get full read and write access to your account via the public API. Go to public.com slash market and fund your account in five minutes or less. That's public.com slash market. Paid for by Public Investing. Brokered services by Open to the Public Investing, Inc., member FINRA and SIPC.

15:02Advisory services by Public Advisors, LLC, SEC registered advisor. Complete disclosures available at public.com slash disclosures. They're back live across North America.

15:20Guns and Roses Tour 2026. Get tickets now at LiveNation.com.

15:37Don't miss Guns N' Roses. And now, another appliance triumph from our friends at Grand Appliance. I love hosting summer parties, but dread reaching over a hot oven door to juggle appetizer trays. So I asked the experts at Grand Appliance for advice, and they recommended a Bosch wall oven with side swing doors for easier access. It's amazing. No reaching over the heat, and they installed it in no time. Host like a pro with expert advice from Grand Appliance. Shop grandappliance.com. I've been talking to Professor David Harris of the University of Pittsburgh Law School about the Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision lifting a restraining order from a judge who found that roving patrols were conducting indiscriminate stops in and around L.A.

16:29The order had barred immigration agents from stopping people solely based on their race, language, job or location. So ICE has promised in an online post to, quote, continue to flood the zone in Los Angeles. So they seem to be taking this as an OK from the Supreme Court. Absolutely. It's the green light. They can all see it. Everybody can read it. And when they say flood the zone, they mean lots and lots of people from our force will be out there doing this. And, you know, like I said before, this is just so unfortunate because when we pour people into a problem like this and we give them the green light and a thumbs up, we know that some people are going to be impacted negatively who have done nothing wrong and shouldn't have to be imposed upon.

17:17and long range if what you care about is public safety if that's on your agenda you are doing the wrong thing you're cutting off your nose to spite your face because public safety depends on public support you need the public to give the police information about what's what in the neighborhood if this is happening not just to people who might be deported legitimately let's say but to other members of their family who are here legally, to people who are just in the neighborhood and who have been born here because they look a certain way, that is going to alienate people, not just from ICE, but from police generally.

17:57And that is a terrible message to send out, and it makes them less likely to cooperate with any policing of any type, and that will leave predators on our streets. So this immigration policy of flooding the zone with forces, with these low accuracy factors, this is going to make it more dangerous for us just on the level of regular crime. The way they're stopping based on these factors. I mean, is that proving to be a good way to find people who are here illegally? Are they making a lot of arrests because of that? Undoubtedly, they are making some arrests of people who are deportable. There's no doubt about that.

18:38it works sometimes. The question is, isn't there a better way that doesn't also sweep in lots of people who have nothing to do with this, who are not part of whatever you consider the immigration problem? If you simply rely on this sort of blunt instrument, you're going to be doing damage along with whatever you see as moving toward your goals. So it will work. There's no question that sometimes it will work? Can I give you a number? No. Is it nine out of ten times? Is it one out of two times? Nobody knows, and this stuff isn't being tracked. But when you lean on ethnic or racial appearance, even as one factor among many, the data for years and years has been clear that this kind of approach is far less accurate than others you might use, and it alienates the public that you really need to support you.

19:34Yeah, I was reading that in some neighborhoods in Los Angeles, when they see those vans with tinted windows, the neighbors who are here legally go out and warn people. Absolutely. And we can't be surprised by that. Given what we've seen, given the way that force has been used on people and that has been sort of publicized, pushed out, look, this is a good thing. Is it surprising? Not at all. People have been put in fear by this, quite deliberately put in fear. So you can't be shocked when members of the public turn around and say, this isn't the kind of thing I want going on. And they start warning people.

20:18They're not on the enforcement team. They're on the non-enforcement team. Think of it like that. Immigration advocates say and fear that this is going to open the door to racial profiling of Hispanic people across the United States. Do you think now that the Supreme Court has said this is OK in Los Angeles, it'll be OK in Chicago or New York or other cities? Well, again, we're left without full knowledge of what the Supreme Court has done or will do because they have made this statement, put out this stay of the lower court's order. and then you have Justice Kavanaugh's opinion, which doesn't represent the whole court.

20:58We don't know how far they will go or what they will say in the end, but people who know just the headline, if they're in the enforcement business, that's how they're going to take it. Supreme Court says it's okay to use racial or ethnic appearance. They're not even going to make the distinction that Justice Kavanaugh does, which is that wouldn't be enough by itself. they're going to take it as racial profiling is okay. And if it's okay in LA, why wouldn't it be okay in Chicago or New York? So this has the potential to do a lot of damage in ways that we would probably want to avoid. But with this decision, the way it's come out and the insufficient explanation, I think there's no avoiding it.

21:44And Justice Sotomayor pointed out that there's no way of knowing what the reasoning of the court was, that it's, you know, anybody's guess. what they base this on. I mean, is it possible that they didn't base it on what Kavanaugh says? No, he's probably got most of it in the sense that there is a legitimate legal issue about issuing an injunction under the current standards of the court to stop activity like this. And there's a legitimate legal issue about whether you can have ethnic or racial appearance being a factor. And he suggests that he thinks the law is clear on that. And that's going to be debated if there's ever a full argument and a full briefing of this for the court.

22:28And we'll see where the court comes out. But if he's an indication, that's how many of the justices on the right will see it. The judge below made some specific findings. Now the case is going to go forward. I mean, is there any chance that there'll be some different kind of findings that will change the Supreme Court's mind? It seemed like the court below was pretty thorough. It was. And no matter what the Supreme Court does, let's say that they follow what we have on the books now, which leaves us guessing, with a full opinion that basically follows up and down with what Justice Kavanaugh said.

23:09If that's the case, you will have lower courts still confronted with lawsuits by people who are citizens or legal permanent residents. You will have lower courts receiving information about what ICE has done. Have they only relied, for instance, on racial appearance, ethnic appearance without considering other factors? And cases will continue to come. What tells me that is prior experience, when this kind of an order comes out, hey, let's flood the zone, let's get in there, let's get everybody, vacuum them up, mistakes are going to be made, and those will end up in a record and a lower court will walk along the line dictated by the Supreme Court, whatever it decides.

23:50And I don't think these cases will stop coming, just given the volume of activity and the way the people from ICE are being urged to proceed by those in charge. There's a preliminary injunction hearing scheduled for September 24th, but in light of this Supreme court decision, can a judge issue a preliminary injunction? At this point, whatever it was that the lower court did, it stayed. So proceedings will not go forward on that level until there's clarity. And when will there be clarity? Your guess is as good as mine. I don't think anybody knows. And the more of these emergency shadow docket cases we get with half opinions that aren't supposed to be precedents, but then Justice Gorsuch tells us, no, the lower courts should be looking at them as authoritative in the National Institute of Health case.

24:42I mean, confusion is really sprouting here. It's really, really hard for lower courts and for anybody to know what's happening when and when we might have some real clarity on any of these issues. Yes, Justice Gorsuch did not like that in the space of a few weeks, all these different courts were not following the Supreme Court's obvious guidance. Yeah, that's right. And yet that, quote, obvious guidance is coming in a form which has always been regarded as without precedential value. So for him to say that, I really think, was just out of line. The lower court judge in that instance apologized that he did not mean to ignore them.

25:24But what are you supposed to do? I mean, I wouldn't want that job right now of trying to figure out what the Supreme Court is telling me to do. And now apparently in Chicago, local activists said that, you know, ICE agents had been targeted in their tactics, presenting warrants at specific homes or detaining people in immigration court. But now they're stopping people on the streets in what seems to be a fairly random fashion. So it seems to be copying what they did in L.A. Well, exactly. Random stops, that kind of roving random stops, that's exactly what the lower court judge had in mind. Those don't have to be unconstitutional in the legal sense, but they lead to that behavior.

26:10That's essentially what the judge in the Los Angeles case found. And, you know, when you basically tell them it's all up to you, all you have to do is see somebody who looks Hispanic and is dressed for low wage work. You know, they're just going to go to town with that. They're going to follow the direction that the Supreme Court has pointed them. So I hope nobody is surprised to see that. So, David, how big a win is this for the Trump administration? Well, it's a win in the sense that a judge in Los Angeles on the ground ordered this activity stopped in the form that it was taking. And now the Supreme Court has said, no, it can go forward.

26:50It's not a permanent win, even if we have good indications that this is the direction that the Supreme Court is going to go. But again, we're left in a little confusion about that. What we do know is that now ICE and whatever law enforcement allies have signed up to help will go ahead and keep doing things the way they were in Los Angeles with these kind of randomized activities, sweeping in lots of people, some of whom are undocumented and some of whom are not. And I would predict without knowing how people think in the White House that they're going to applaud that. And remind me, what happened with the show me your papers in Arizona?