ADVERTISEMENT
From Los Angeles to cities across the nation where mixed-status families live and work side by side, the psychological impact of the ruling may be as powerful—or even more powerful—than its legal effect. In neighborhoods already wary of law enforcement, there is now a palpable fear that routine interactions could escalate into immigration interrogations. A traffic stop, a casual walk through a park, or a check at a job site might suddenly become a flashpoint for invasive questioning or detention. Supporters of the vote insist that the ruling simply restores the federal government’s ability to enforce immigration laws fully, enabling agents to pursue suspects based on a combination of lawful factors. They argue that enforcement agencies must have tools sensitive to real-world conditions, especially in areas with large undocumented populations.
But opponents see the decision very differently. To them, it represents the opening of a door to normalized profiling, where people are judged and potentially detained because of how they look or speak rather than because of individualized evidence of wrongdoing. In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor—joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson—pronounced the ruling “unconscionably irreconcilable with our nation’s constitutional guarantees,” warning that the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures should apply universally. Sotomayor’s pointed critique underscored the concern that Latinos, Spanish speakers, and other visible immigrant communities could be treated as perpetual suspects under the law.
ADVERTISEMENT
