Piñon Post

New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez lashed out Monday at the U.S. Supreme Court for granting the Department of Homeland Security and the Trump Administration authority to continue critical immigration enforcement operations in Los Angeles. In reality, the Court’s action did nothing more than restore the long-standing ability of federal officers to do their jobs while a lawsuit continues in the lower courts.

In a 6–3 decision, the justices stayed a sweeping injunction issued in July by U.S. District Judge Maame Frimpong that had barred ICE agents from considering obvious factors when determining whether someone might be in the country illegally. That order, cheered by activist groups, effectively handcuffed federal law enforcement by forbidding them from looking at context such as location, type of work, language, or appearance when making quick field decisions.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and the Trump Administration appealed, arguing the injunction dangerously tied the hands of immigration officers at a time when illegal crossings and criminal alien activity are overwhelming communities. The Ninth Circuit had upheld Frimpong’s restrictions, but the Supreme Court intervened, restoring federal authority until the case can be fully argued. A district-court hearing on the plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction request is scheduled for September 24.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, concurring with the majority, underscored that officers must still follow the Constitution by relying on “reasonable suspicion” under the totality of the circumstances — the same standard courts have recognized for decades. What the Court rejected was the idea that officers must blind themselves to reality. It is common sense that language, location, and certain behaviors can factor into suspicion when combined with other evidence.

Torrez, however, responded with dramatic claims that the Court’s decision “allows federal agents to continue to stop and detain people because of their skin color, the language they speak, and the work that they do.” That rhetoric badly misrepresents what the Court did. No justice endorsed racial profiling. The justices simply recognized that ICE agents must retain the discretion to act in high-risk environments without fear that every judgment call will be second-guessed by activist courts.

The facts bear repeating: immigration enforcement operations in Los Angeles were targeting day-labor pickup sites where agents had documented a high concentration of illegal entrants, including individuals with criminal records. Critics of the raids, including the ACLU, want the courts to effectively prevent agents from acting in those contexts. The Supreme Court, by contrast, affirmed that DHS cannot be stripped of its basic enforcement tools while the litigation plays out.

Torrez’s broadside is not about protecting citizens — citizens have nothing to fear if they are law-abiding and carry identification. His outrage is about scoring political points by echoing activist talking points that conflate lawful immigration enforcement with racism. It is telling that he framed the Court’s ruling as an “insult to New Mexicans,” when in truth it simply preserves federal agents’ ability to apprehend criminal aliens before they endanger communities.

The bottom line of the Court’s action is simple: DHS must have the authority to enforce immigration law, and the Supreme Court ensured that authority remains intact. Torrez’s mischaracterization only sows fear and confusion, while Sec. Noem and the Trump Administration have taken the responsible position of defending the tools officers need to protect the public.