CNS: Judge orders Trump administration to halt warrantless immigration arrests in District of Columbia; Kavanaugh’s concurrence in Perdomo isn’t the law

CNS: Judge orders Trump administration to halt warrantless immigration arrests in District of Columbia by Ryan Knappenberger (“A federal judge Tuesday night ordered the Trump administration to cease its campaign of arresting immigrants in Washington, D.C. without a warrant or probable cause of a flight risk, warning that the White House’s mistreatment of immigrants could put Americans overseas at risk. U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell ruled that, while federal agents may have the authority to make warrantless immigration arrests, the way that authority has been used on the immigrant community in Washington was likely unlawful.”) The case is Molina v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 234930 (D.D.C. Dec. 2, 2025), and Kavanaugh’s Perdumo concurrence is not the law, id. at 61-62:

Defendants also invoke Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence in Noem v. Perdomo, 2025 WL 2585637 (Sept. 8, 2025), a recent Supreme Court emergency order staying a district court’s injunction in a case challenging federal immigration stops without reasonable suspicion, and note the concurrence suggested the plaintiffs there likely lacked standing under Lyons. Even defendants concede that this “concurrence” does not “constitute[] binding precedent,” Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408, 412-13 (1997); see Hr’g Tr. at 75:5-6. The Court majority merely issued a one-paragraph order granting a stay without any explanation for its holding. See Perdomo, 2025 WL 2585637, at *1. Bluntly put, why the Court ruled as it did remains unclear—and without reasoning, this order cannot even be considered as persuasive. Second, Justice Kavanaugh’s conclusion that the plaintiffs lacked standing in Perdomo rested on the claims asserted in that case—specifically, plaintiffs there sought to enjoin defendants from targeting individuals for immigration stops based on certain factors, such as race or ethnicity, their accent, and the type of work they did. Id. Justice Kavanaugh reasoned that plaintiffs in Perdomo likely lacked standing under Lyons, as defendants may “stop suspected illegal immigrants based on a variety of factors,” and thus “plaintiffs ha[d] no good basis to believe that law enforcement will unlawfully stop them in the future” based “only on [prohibited] factors.” Id. at *3 (emphases in original). In contrast, this case concerns an entirely different context, namely, civil immigration arrests rather than immigration stops, which were at issue in Perdomo, and a different type of challenge. Specifically, plaintiffs are not arguing which factors defendants may consider in their application of a legal standard, but rather contend that defendants have abandoned the proper legal standard entirely. See Pls.’ Reply at 8. Thus, Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence in Perdomo, to the extent it has persuasive, let alone controlling, authority, is inapposite.