SCOTUSBlog: “Roving patrols,” reasonable suspicion, and Perdomo

SCOTUSBlog: “Roving patrols,” reasonable suspicion, and Perdomo by Rory Little:

Fifty years ago, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Brignoni-Ponce that having “roving patrols” stop cars “near the border” whose “occupants appear to be of Mexican ancestry” violated the Constitution. But on Sept. 8, in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, the Supreme Court by an apparent vote of 6-3 put on hold a district court order preventing immigration sweeps of locations such as car washes and parking lots if ICE detains people based only on their ethnicity. Attorney General Pamela Bondi exulted that “[n]ow, ICE can continue carrying out roving patrols in California,” a statement that seems to fly in the face of Brignoni-Ponce.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh should be commended for proposing a concurring explanation in Perdomo (three liberal justices dissented and no other justice published a view). Explanations have been rare on the court’s “shadow docket.” I certainly hope that responsible legal criticism of his concurrence does not discourage his explanatory instinct. But his assertion that Brignoni-Ponce supports the idea that “the Government has a fair prospect of succeeding on the Fourth Amendment issue” in Perdomo is at best an overreading. If accepted by a majority, his view would constitute a significant doctrinal shift in “reasonable suspicion” Fourth Amendment doctrine.

This entry was posted in Immigration arrests, Reasonable suspicion, SCOTUS. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.