{"id":404,"date":"2026-02-02T00:13:11","date_gmt":"2026-02-02T00:13:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/?p=404"},"modified":"2026-02-02T00:13:11","modified_gmt":"2026-02-02T00:13:11","slug":"noem-v-vasquez-perdomo-the-chilling-dissent-for-the-future-of-latinos-in-the-us","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/2026\/02\/noem-v-vasquez-perdomo-the-chilling-dissent-for-the-future-of-latinos-in-the-us\/","title":{"rendered":"Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo: The Chilling Dissent for the Future of Latinos in the US"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Facts<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In June of 2025, the Trump administration debuted its Operation At Large nationwide initiative in Los Angeles, California. Operation At Large<\/a>, led by ICE, aims to fulfill President Trump\u2019s goal of \u201ccrackdown\u201d on immigration by deploying \u201cpatrols of armed and masked immigration agents\u201d to various locations, such as Home Depots, churches, parks, and bus stops. Born out of this initiative is the case, Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo. The plaintiffs, Latino people who were stopped by immigration agents, filed an action against Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and other senior federal immigration enforcement officials alleging that the Government violated the Fourth Amendment.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The plaintiffs claim that the Government lacked reasonable suspicion when they stopped individuals based solely on four factors<\/a>: (1) apparent race or ethnicity; (2) speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent; (3) presence in a particular location; and (4) the type of work one does. As a result, the plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order that would prevent the Government from conducting any further stops based solely on those four factors. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The district court granted the temporary restraining order<\/a> finding \u201cample evidence that seizures occurred based solely on the four enumerated factors.\u201d The court also found that a districtwide injunction was necessary for complete relief because of the high likelihood of recurrent injury given that law enforcement was unlikely to check whether or not the individual they stopped was one of the named plaintiffs. The Government appealed the grant of the temporary restraining order to the Ninth Circuit and moved for a stay pending appeal. The Ninth Circuit denied the Government\u2019s request for a stay and rejected their arguments that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing, that the temporary restraining order was inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment, and that the injunction exceeded what was necessary to provide the plaintiffs with complete relief. The Government then appealed the Ninth Circuit\u2019s holding to the United States Supreme Court. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court granted the Government\u2019s stay with no elaboration or explanation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Dissent<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Justice Sonia Sotomayor\u2013the first Latina to ever sit on the Supreme Court\u2013dissented. Joined by Justice Kagan and Justice Jackson, the dissent warns the American people of what exactly the Court is doing by granting the Government\u2019s stay.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The dissent begins by painting a picture of what the immigration raids look like<\/a>. One plaintiff, a Latino U.S. citizen, was asked if they were an American citizen at least three separate times with the plaintiff confirming his citizenship each time. The ICE agents\u2013armed with handguns and \u201cmilitary-style rifles\u201d\u2013continued to badger the plaintiff, asking him to recall what hospital he was born in. When he was unable to answer at the speed in which the agents liked, one agent proceeded to charge a rifle and, together, they pushed the plaintiff up against a wire fence, put his hands behind his back, and twisted his arm. They stopped their interrogation only after the plaintiff showed them his REAL ID. The plaintiff was never returned his ID. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another plaintiff, a dual citizen of Mexico and the U.S., was working at a car wash when ICE agents showed up four times in the span of nine days. On one of these occasions, agents approached the plaintiff\u2013and after deciding that his ID wasn\u2019t enough to prove his citizenship\u2013grabbed him, put him in a vehicle, and took him to a warehouse for additional questioning. After twenty minutes in detention, they verified his citizenship. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The dissent highlights how the Operation at Large initiative has sparked panic and fear across Los Angeles, causing some Latinos to hesitate to attend school meetings or even to pick their children up from school. The opinion also chose to include statements submitted by the plaintiffs made by federal officials regarding the Government\u2019s immigration enforcement efforts<\/a>. These statements, made by White House Deputy Chief of Staff and senior immigration officials, detail a desire to \u201cjust go out there and arrest illegal aliens\u201d and to \u201cpush the envelope\u201d when it came to detaining undocumented individuals. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Justice Sotomayor states that the Government \u201chas all but declared that all Latinos, U.S. citizens or not, who work low wage jobs are fair game to be seized at any time, taken away from work, and held until they provide proof of their legal status to the agents\u2019 satisfaction<\/a>.\u201d She describes the Government\u2019s immigration efforts as \u201cseize first and ask questions later.\u201d She also posits that the Constitution does not permit the creation of a \u201csecond-class citizenship status<\/a>,\u201d though this is exactly what the Government is creating and the Court is allowing by granting the stay. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Justice Sotomayor reflects not only upon the Court\u2019s decision in this case, but in other recent cases as well. She writes that the Court\u2019s “appetite to circumvent the ordinary appellate process and weigh in on important issues has grown exponentially,\u201d but \u201cits interest in explaining itself, unfortunately, has not<\/a>.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Justice Sotomayor ends her dissent by labelling this decision \u201cunconscionably irreconcilable with our Nation\u2019s constitutional guarantees<\/a>.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Response<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The dissent in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo tells Americans just what the Court, and the Government, is allowing to happen. The Court functionally granted the Government the ability to use four innocuous factors to support a finding of reasonable suspicion and to continue their crusade across cities. In doing this, the Court sent a message to the country that ethnicity-based profiling is constitutionally protected under the guise of immigration enforcement. Additionally, with the lack of explanation from the Court detailing how exactly they came to the conclusion that a stay was appropriate with this set of facts, there is no guidance to navigate this decision. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

If law enforcement\u00a0is able to\u00a0act in\u00a0sole reliance on the\u00a0aforementioned\u00a0four\u00a0factors, no Latinos in this country are safe. Citizens or not, all individuals who look a certain way, speak a certain way, frequent certain locations,\u00a0or\u00a0have certain jobs are at risk. Essentially, Latinos everywhere are at risk of detainment and violence at the hands of government agents. If the Court continues to make\u00a0seemingly baseless\u00a0decisions and does not explain their actions to the American people, we\u00a0will\u00a0begin the slide into a more uncertain future.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Amy Estrada<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Class of 2027, Staff Member<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Facts  In June of 2025, the Trump administration debuted its Operation At Large nationwide initiative in Los Angeles, California. Operation At Large, led by ICE, aims to fulfill President Trump\u2019s goal of \u201ccrackdown\u201d on immigration by deploying \u201cpatrols of armed and masked immigration agents\u201d to various locations, such as Home Depots, churches, parks, and bus stops. Born out of this initiative …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[9],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/404"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=404"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/404\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":405,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/404\/revisions\/405"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=404"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=404"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=404"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}