S1: Welcome in San Diego. It's Jade Hindman. On today's show , we're talking about the Supreme Court's decision on roving ice patrols and racial profiling. This is KPBS Midday Edition. Connecting our communities through conversation. So one of the headlines that really caught my eye this morning was from the LA times. And it read , Newsom escalates clash with Trump in state of the state , declares California under siege. That headline comes after yesterday's Supreme Court ruling , which lifted a temporary restraining order that put restrictions on immigration sweeps in Los Angeles and Southern California. So for now , agents are no longer restricted from stopping and detaining people based on how they look and speak their job or location. Cal matters immigration and border reporter Wendy Frey , along with Cal Matters investigative reporter Sergio Olmos. Join me live now to talk about how this ruling could really impact our region. Wendy. Sergio , welcome to the show.
S2: Good morning. Thanks so much for having us.
S1: So glad to have you both here. Wendy , I'll start with you. Break it down for us. What did the Supreme Court rule yesterday ? Right.
S3: So Justice Kavanaugh ruled or issued this concurring opinion , where he sided with the Trump administration's request for an emergency appeal ? And basically , he he he emphasized that ethnicity alone cannot justify reasonable suspicion , but that it can be one factor in what is called a totality of circumstances , which means basically anything a Border Patrol agent might know or anything a Border Patrol agent has learned in his however many years he's been on the job. And and also , you know , saying that appearance could be one of these factors for people. For Border Patrol agents to make these stops.
S1:
S2: The ACLU and a host of a number of advocacy organizations , they were saying , hey , they're they're using , you know , they're racial profiling people. They're stopping people. They're running up to Home Depots and car washes. They don't know who these people are. They're not going after people with criminal history. They're just looking at someone who looks Latino and and using. And , you know , a Border Patrol agent might think , oh , I think he's illegal. And they're arresting them and they've have they've arrested , you know , as U.S. citizens. And so they went to court and said , hey , this is not you know , this is not constitutional. Everybody has a right. You can walk around this country without having to prove your innocence. And the district court agreed. The Ninth Circuit upheld it. When it goes to the Supreme Court , you know , it's A63 decision , you know , as Justice Sotomayor said , quote , in her dissent , we should not have to live in a country where the government can seize anyone who looks Latino , speaks Spanish and appears to work in a low wage job. And I'll add that like the Ninth Circuit , when they were when they upheld this temporary restraining order , they noted that 45% of the people that live in the Central District , like the Los Angeles area , are Hispanic , and many of them speak Spanish. And so , you know , I speak Spanish. I'm Hispanic. Theoretically , if I walk out my door right now , um , I'm I could be under reasonable suspicion because I speak Spanish and Latino. So like , that is the extent to which this ruling is huge.
S1: And the thing is , if it can happen to you , it can happen to anybody , you know. Um , Wendy , I just want to make sure that I got this right. This is just an emergency ruling. Not yet the final one. As the lawsuit still continues to make its way through the courts.
S3: So the Supreme Court lifted temporarily lifted this temporary restraining order via their shadow docket , which means that they did not have to get a full briefing from both parties. They did not have to listen to oral arguments and they didn't actually even have to explain their decision. They did somewhat explain some of the decision , but they don't have to offer a full legal explanation of why they're siding with the Trump administration. And in fact , they have sided with the Trump administration in 17 straight decisions from their shadow docket , particularly when it comes to immigration. And this case is still alive , though , so it's still going to continue at the district court level , and it's going to go back to a hearing on a potential preliminary injunction so we could see this whole cycle repeat itself again. The district judge could rule that a preliminary injunction is necessary to stop the violation of People's Fourth Amendment rights in the Central District , and then the Trump administration could start their appeal process again and bring it right back up again.
S1: Well , Sergio , this ruling just applies to Los Angeles. But I mean , could this have consequences for immigration enforcement across the country. Can you talk a bit more about that ? Yeah.
S2: The attorneys I talked to , uh , you know , were specifying that this this is just about this case in the Central District. So the tiara , the temporary retainer goes away. Like Wendy said , they're going to they're still going to argue for a preliminary injunction , which is the basically the same thing , except that it lasts for the duration of the case , which could take years. You know , on September 24th , they're going to argue for that. And again , that might go up to the Supreme Court as well. But the Toro's gone , which means immigration agents are free to resume their raids across Los Angeles. There is a preliminary injunction in the Eastern District , which is like Bakersfield , Sacramento , all that area. That preliminary injunction is still there. It still exists. Um , there isn't anything in the San Diego region , but what this means for like the rest of California , for the , for the national stage is if the raids are now going on in Chicago , right where Gregory Bovino , who who was the the chief architect of these raids here , he's been sent there. If they're going to file a TRO there , of course , attorneys they're there are going to look what happened in Los Angeles because it if that goes up to the Supreme Court , the same thing is likely to happen. So this kind of sets the , the the tone for the rest of the country. What you can expect if any other state tries to fight this in court. Hmm.
S4: Hmm. Well , also.
S3: Is just giving a green light to , you know , the federal government basically is giving a green light to the federal immigration agents. And , you know , we've all seen the videos of how they're conducting these arrests and what they're doing to people , um , driving up very quickly in unmarked cars , jumping out , wearing masks , wearing , you know , military style battle fatigues with heavy arm weapons , right , and running straight towards people , barreling towards people or corralling them in these parking lots of Home Depots. And those kind of tactics could be seen anywhere else in the country. Yeah.
S4: Yeah.
S1:
S2: Um , uh , the the raids , you know , hit their peak in June and July. And then after the TRO temporary restraining order , they really dropped off significantly. Um , the the TRO was working , there were still rates. There was still but it looked much more to be the kind of ice targeted rates where they're looking for a specific person rather than running up to a , you know , agents jumping out of cars , running into running out of car wash and people running for their lives and then arresting them because they ran. That seemed to have paused. Um , although , you know , there were still like a very high profile incident at a Home Depot where immigration agents were in a , uh , a Penske rental truck and then jumped out very cinematically and filmed it and , you know , made this video online. Uh , overall , though , uh , the the raids in Los Angeles , when they were happening in June , July , it gave a different character to the streets. There's a lot less like like food , like a , like , taco stands outside. Grocery stores were like , not as packed. And this is this is anecdotal , but if you live in LA , you knew it was happening. I mean , restaurants , like businesses , have all these , like , signs now that say that only customers are allowed in. And some of them will even go so far as to say , if you're an immigration agent , you have to have a warrant to enter. Like , I have never seen that in LA before , but the the city totally changed because of that. And again , like the central like the Ninth circuit , you know , said 45% of the people in this district are Hispanic or , you know , or Latino , like it's a lot of people here who even if you are , you know , lawfully in the country like I am , you still have family , like you still know people who have been affected by this. So like , it totally affected life in LA as I as it would in San Diego.
S1: Well , it has in San Diego. I remember going through Barrio Logan and seeing those same signs up in the local businesses there. It's having a deep impact on so many communities. And in your article , you quoted what justice so does , Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissenting opinion. What impact might this level of racial profiling have even beyond these sweeps and immigration enforcement at large. Sergio , I'll throw that to you.
S2: Well , so the I the way because this went to the shadow docket and it was not articulated out like Wendy said , uh , attorneys. This is a real big fear for attorneys because now , you know , ostensibly , everything the government wanted was agreed to. And so if you look at that , it says , you know , ethnicity of a person where they work , um , broken English or Spanish , you know , where someone works is not defined. So , yeah , we saw car washers , Home Depots. But ostensibly , you know , an immigration agent can say , well , I now think that , you know , an office or , uh , you know , or any kind of workplace , a newsroom , uh , a factory , like a type of work is not defined in there. Also speaking Spanish , like , you know , many of us speak Spanish or , you know , um , the idea that that is now grounds for reasonable suspicion. You know , the Los Angeles Police Department cannot pull me over because of the type of work I do , because I speak Spanish , because I look Latino , that's not allowed. But now immigration agents can say that is allowed , right ? That is the. So I think the impacts of this , I think , are still to be felt. I think the , the , the potential for mass harm is going to be there because not defining the type of work , not leaving it open to ethnicity. I mean , again , I have to emphasize the point. Like if you're Latino and you speak Spanish , you can't even you can't even be mad like that. They , they , they detain you because that is reasonable suspicion now. Hmm.
S4: Hmm. Wendy.
S1: Wendy. Anything to.
S4: Remember ? Yeah.
S3: Do you remember at the beginning of this when advocates were saying , you know , the US Constitution applies to everybody within the United States ? It doesn't matter what your immigration status is , it doesn't matter what the color of your skin is. We all have equal constitutional protections under the Constitution , which include we all have the right to be outside , not doing anything wrong , just standing there and not fear that any federal agent who unidentified federal agent can come up and tackle us or pin us to the ground and handcuff us. And now that is in question. You know , there it's creating two levels of of citizenry or being able to be a resident in this country where some people have more rights than others. And if you have to walk out your door , you have to think about what amount of paperwork or file folder you need to take with you to be able to prove that you're allowed to be in this country. It creates less of a sense of belonging in the society , and that's where I think is a real concern , a real long lasting damage that we might not ever get out of after this is all over is how can people feel that they are part of our community if this has happened ? Yeah.
S4:
S1: Creates an entire class of people and keeps them them sort of on the outskirts here. Sergio ? Yeah.
S2: Can I just ask before you go there ? Just. Let's just assume you have no empathy for another person , and you don't care about immigration at all. But let's say you're an American citizen and you go to a Home Depot or car wash today , and let's just say you are Latino or whatever. Maybe you're not Latino , but maybe you speak another language. You're now under U. The federal government has reasonable suspicion to detain you. Now they can detain you based on this , even if you don't care about other people. Like this applies to everyone. The idea that you can go to a Home Depot and speak another language , and that is grounds for reasonable suspicion that applies to everyone that you know , to me , as an American citizen , you're allowed to go to Home Depot. You're allowed to speak into the language. It is absurd that you know , you are now cause to , to to , you know , have to prove your innocence. Mhm.
S4: Mhm.
S1: You know , there's been a huge community response to the immigration raids here in San Diego and in California. You were at a press conference , Sergio , in LA yesterday.
S2: And they were , you know , there was a they're trying to fight back that , you know , people would be demoralized because it is demoralizing. I mean , they they this is a Fourth Amendment issue. And to lose on that , it's quite demoralizing. The la Mary , Karen Bass is out there saying that she's going to ask officers to , you know , bolster their training on not , you know , not , you know , any California police officers here cannot go on immigration rates because of SB 54 , you know , so Karen Bass was trying to shore up the public that , hey , local law enforcement , you know , to be clear , is not involved in this. Um , attorneys , though were quite clear to say , like , hey , listen , we're still going to fight this for this preliminary injunction. It's like , it's not over. The preliminary injunction fight is still to come on September 24th. That is a you know , the TRO goes away , but if they get the preliminary injunction , you know , it's a kind of different battle there in the sense of they'll be , you know , that might not get it's not automatic that Supreme Court would reject that. So they're kind of trying to tell people like we still have a fight ahead. And even if that , you know , even the preliminary injunction , if that were to get kicked by the Supreme Court later on , you know , they still have the case. So attorneys are trying to say , like , this is not the , you know , end of the game here. Like , we there's still things they're fighting for in court.
S1: Well , Wendy , I'll let you have the last word here.
S3: If they get stopped and detained and interrogated about their immigration status. And I would say , um , you know , we have seen several examples and some of the examples are in these court paperwork or in these cases of US citizens being detained , you know , violently arrested , thrown to the ground , legal permanent residents , grandmothers thrown on the ground and detained for days and days , and sometimes without their family knowing where they are. So , um , that's just one part that. I.
S4: I.
S3: Wanted to highlight. Yeah.
S4: Yeah.
S1: No thank you. And thank you so much for y'all's reporting on this. It's something that we'll continue to follow and have you back on for. I've been speaking with Wendy Fry , California Divide reporter , and Sergio Olmos , investigative reporter at Cal Matters. Wendy , Sergio , again , thank you so much.
S3: Thank you. Nice talking to you , Jane. Thanks.
S1: That's our show for today. I'm your host , Jade Hindman. Thanks for tuning in to Midday Edition. Be sure to have a great day on purpose , everyone.
