Bonta Disappointed: Supreme Court L.A. Immigration Raids Ruling
California Attorney General Condemns Supreme Court Ruling on Immigration Enforcement
Table of Contents
Updated September 8, 2025, 8:28 PM PDT
Supreme Court Decision Allows Race-Based Stops
california Attorney General Rob Bonta sharply criticized a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that permits immigration agents to stop and question individuals suspected of being in the country illegally based on characteristics like race, place of employment, or perceived inability to speak English. The ruling, handed down on June 24, 2024, effectively overturns objections raised by civil rights groups during the Trump governance.
Bonta, speaking at a news conference in Los Angeles, aligned himself with arguments previously made by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) regarding the constitutionality of these tactics. He asserted that such indiscriminate practices violate the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Concerns Over Fourth Amendment Rights
The Attorney General stated that it is indeed unconstitutional for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and other federal immigration officers to utilize factors like race, language skills, location, or occupation as justification to stop, detain, or search california residents. He emphasized the potential for discriminatory practices stemming from the ruling.
Bonta also expressed disappointment with the Supreme Court’s increasing reliance on its “emergency docket” – a process for expedited rulings – noting its lack of openness. He pointed out that decisions made through this docket frequently enough lack detailed explanations or recorded votes from the justices.
Kavanaugh’s Reasoning Draws Criticism
Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, appointed by former President Donald Trump, argued in the majority opinion that engaging in day labor, such as construction or farming, could be a relevant factor in identifying individuals for immigration enforcement. This reasoning, Bonta said, is “very disturbing” and opens the door to racial profiling.
Bonta specifically condemned the implication that participation in certain types of work could be used to target individuals,stating that the practice enables “the use of race to perhaps discriminate.” he characterized the decision as both “disturbing and troubling.”