BREAKING: Supreme Court allows Trump admin's immigration enforcement in LA

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of the Trump administration’s efforts to carry out immigration-related stops in the Los Angeles area. The high court ruled 6-3 in favor of blocking the lower court’s ruling that placed restrictions on such stops. 

The lower court’s ruling had blocked US immigration officers from "making investigative stops in the Los Angeles area when the stops are based on the following factors or combination of factors (i) presence at particular locations such as bus stops, car washes, day laborer pickup sites, agricultural sites, and the like; (ii) the type of work one does; (iii) speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent; and (iv) apparent race or ethnicity," Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in his concurring opinion.

Kavanaugh wrote that he recognized "and fully appreciate that many (not all, but many) illegal immigrants come to the United States to escape povery and the lack of fredom and opportunities in their home country," however, "the fact remains that, under the laws passed by Congress and the President, they are acting illegally by remaining in the United States."

"And by illegally immigrating into and remaining in the country, they are not only violating the immigration laws, but also jumping in front of those noncitizens who follow the rules and wait in line to immigrate into the United States through the legal immigration purposes. For those reasons, the interests of illegal immigrants in evading questioning (and thus evading detection of their illegal presence) are not particularly substantial as a legal matter."

"Moreover, as for stops of those individuals who are legally in the country, the questioning in those circumstances is typically brief, and 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."

Kavanaugh wrote that to conduct a stop for questioning on immigration status, the government "must have reasonable suspicion that the individual is illegally present in the United States," which is "a lesser requirement than probable cause and 'considerably short' of the preponderance of the evidence standard."

"Whether an officer has reasonable suspicion depends on the totality of the circumstances," he wrote. "Here, those circumstances include: that there is an extremely high number and percentage of illegal immigrants in the Los Angeles area; that those individuals tend to gather in certain locations to seek daily work; that those individuals often work in certain kinds of jobs, such as day labor, landscaping, agriculture, and construction, that do not require paperwork and are therefore especially attractive to illegal immigrants; and that many of those illegally in the Los Angeles area come from Mexico or Central America and do not speak much English."

"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. Under this Court’s precedents, not to mention common sense, those circumstances taken together can constitute at least reasonable suspicion of illegal presence in the United States. Importantly, reasonable suspicion means only that immigration officers may briefly stop the individual and inquire about immigration status. If the person is a U. S. citizen or otherwise lawfully in the United States, that individual will be free to go after the brief encounter. Only if the person is illegally in the United States may the stop lead to further immigration proceedings."