A New Era of Racial Profiling: The Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo (2025) Ruling

Photo via Business Insider

***

In August 2025, the Supreme Court released a decision that may be the turning point in the balance between immigration enforcement and civil liberties. Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo (2025), in a 6-3 decision, ruled that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents have the authorization to detain and question an individual about their immigration status if they have “reasonable suspicion” of illegal status. At first glance, the ruling appears consistent with historical precedent and principles on the Fourth Amendment and its parameters; but a deeper look reveals the concern that is needed surrounding what constitutes suspicion. Is it the boy who speaks broken English in class? Is it the father who leaves work late after sunset? Is it in the courthouse where a family is appearing for civil immigration matters? 

The Fourth Amendment, a member of the Bill of Rights, protects people against “unreasonable searches and seizures,” requiring that government intrusions be justifiable by “probable cause,” or, in some circumstances, by the lower standard of “reasonable suspicion.” In Terry v. Ohio, the Court outlined this lower standard to allow brief, circumstantial stops that are readily justifiable. In Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, the controversy lies in how far this standard can be extended and applied: are the factors enumerated in Noem legitimate according to the Fourth Amendment, or does this erase the Amendment’s purpose and protections? 

The Supreme Court’s decision explicitly permits factors including speaking Spanish or English with an accent, “apparent race or ethnicity,” an individual’s type of work, and presence at particular places, such as bus stops, agricultural sites, and car washes. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, warns that this decision could lead to the creation of second-class citizenship, which refers to people not given the same rights and opportunities in a society because they belong to a particular group. Her warning mirrors past judicial battles revolving around stop-and-frisk policies, especially the federal court case Floyd v. City of New York (2013), which found the New York Police Department’s (NYPD) use of the practice unconstitutional because of its interrogation tactics. By mirroring the practice of stop-and-frisk in the immigration context, Noem endangers reviving discriminatory policy, evicting civil liberties and constitutional protections, and inflicting psychological harm on communities of color. 

The standard of “reasonable suspicion” originates in Terry v. Ohio (1968), where the Supreme Court ruled the practice of stop-and-frisk as constitutional under the Fourth Amendment in cases where police officers had specific facts and incidents suggesting criminal activity. This standard produced a lower threshold than “probable cause”—when there are reasonable grounds for believing that a crime has been committed or evidence of a crime is present in a particular place—and served with the purpose of protecting officers’ safety. However, in practice, “reasonable suspicion” has become a vague and ambiguous standard. 

In the early 2000s, New York introduced the practice of stop-and-frisk on a wide scale. Officers arrested hundreds of thousands of people annually. However, a 2016 study found that in 43% of cases of stop-and-frisk, the likelihood of finding a weapon was less than 1%. The study further found that Black people and Hispanics were disproportionately stopped, explaining that when people of color are stopped, it is typically with less evidence than when white suspects are stopped. As a result, the matter was brought to the courts, and a federal judge ruled stop-and-frisk as unconstitutional in Floyd v. City of New York due to its “policy of indirect racial profiling” that violated the Fourth Amendment. Judge Shira Scheindlin emphasized the psychological and social impact of the practice, noting the dehumanizing and humiliating experiences expressed by plaintiffs in the case. Judge Scheindlin wrote: “It is impermissible to subject all members of a racially defined group to heightened police enforcement because some members of that group are criminals.” 

Noem reinstates these same issues through immigration enforcement. While Floyd ruled racial profiling as unconstitutional in New York, Noem risks applying it nationwide to all individuals and communities. 

In the Noem ruling, the Court essentially proclaimed that ICE agents have the jurisdiction to stop people for questioning if there is a “reasonable suspicion” that the individual is unlawfully present in the United States. Specifically, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion: “To stop an individual for brief questioning about immigration status, the Government must have reasonable suspicion that the individual is illegally present in the United States.” Following this standard, the opinion lists factors that are relevant in justifying suspicion as stated earlier. This formulation of “reasonable suspicion” is alarming for several reasons. Language fluency, ethnicity, and race are not reliable indicators of immigration status. Millions of U.S. citizens, whether through birth-right citizenship or naturalization, and lawful residents speak limited English or other languages than English. In fact, according to the US Census, over 67.8 million, nearly 1 in 5 people, speak a language other than English at home, not accounting for those who simply speak that language. 

This draws the question: If one speaks, for example, Spanish, in their majority-Hispanic community, how is it a true indicator? If someone is practicing their language skills with others in public, then what can one make of the situation? Naturally, one can conclude that this is an unfair standard of determining legality. By labeling “apparent race or ethnicity” as a relevant factor, the Court obliges ICE agents to rely on prejudice and stereotypes. Although the Court writes that “apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion,” the Court offers no clear outline or limits on how many factors would suffice to justify “reasonable suspicion.” As the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin noted in their press release, “Without reasoning, there’s no clear legal guidance for lower courts or law enforcement. That vagueness is the point. It allows agents to abuse power while hiding behind the ambiguity of the Court’s silence.” 

As Justice Sotomayor wrote in her dissenting opinion: “We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job.” The ruling threatens subjecting Latino and Hispanic communities to constant suspicion and fear simply for being in public spaces. The decision reflects NYPD’s rationale for stop-and-frisk policing, which was overturned as it blurred the line between “reasonable suspicion” and profiling. 

Beyond the ruling’s legal implications, Noem introduces significant costs in the economic and social well-being of communities. As documented during the stop-and-frisk period, Black and Hispanic populations were disproportionately targeted. The same is at risk in the context of immigration. In effect, small businesses across numerous states have reported drops in their sales as immigrant families have stayed home out of fear, leaving small businesses economically concerned. One restaurant owner in Los Angeles states how “It’s worse than Covid.” 

This not only depletes local economies, but also negatively impacts education. As ICE raids have increased, a stark increase in absences was also present. In Central Valley, immigrant parents shared their fear of being arrested while their child was at school, leaving some to keep their children at home. But if children cannot freely go to school, where are they supposed to feel safe? The Noem decision threatens to further erode trust between children and educators, between families and administrations, communities and law enforcement. This is the slippery slope that the Court has opened: If race and ethnicity, language ability, where you are at a given time, and other factors, are viewed as relevant factors, then these will be diluted to serve as legal standards for other contexts. Once this is enforced, it cannot be stopped and will soon wash away constitutional protections and civil liberties.

The Supreme Court case Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo reapplies the struck down logic behind stop-and-frisk and places it in the context of immigration enforcement. By allowing ethnicity and language to be viable factors in justifying “reasonable suspicion,” the Court has legitimatized racial profiling as a potent concept. The decision not only undermines Fourth Amendment protections, but also initiates significant social harms on communities of color. As Justice Sotomayor wrote, the ruling risks dehumanizing individuals to second-class citizens. If the United States seeks to protect democracy and civility, the new decision must be challenged, especially before it becomes the norm of society.  

***

This article was edited by Griffen Strauss.