Supreme Court’s Controversial Racial Profiling Ruling from Trump Era Resurfaces in Debate

A Supreme Court decision from the Trump administration, which allowed law enforcement to consider race and ethnicity as factors in immigration stops, continues to draw criticism years after its initial ruling. The 6-3 vote, which set aside a Los Angeles judge’s temporary restraining order, permitted agents to stop and question individuals based in part on their race or apparent ethnicity, particularly Latinos suspected of being in the country illegally.

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, stated that while “apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion,” it can be a relevant factor when considered alongside other “salient factors.” This ruling sparked immediate backlash from legal experts and civil rights advocates, who argued it effectively sanctioned racial profiling.

UCLA law professor Ahilan Arulanantham described the decision as “shocking and appalling,” highlighting a perceived contradiction with the court’s recent stance against the use of race in college admissions. Critics, including George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin, argued that it is inconsistent to deem racial discrimination generally unconstitutional yet permit its use under the 4th Amendment in immigration contexts. The ruling’s implications, particularly for the large Latino population in areas like Los Angeles, were underscored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor in her dissent, who warned of increased indignities for countless individuals based on their appearance and background.

阅读中文版 (Read Chinese Version)

Disclaimer: This content is aggregated from public sources online. Please verify information independently. If you believe your rights have been infringed, contact us for removal.