Over the objections of liberals on the court, the Supreme Court has handed President Trump two major victories with respect to immigration enforcement and his ability to fire individuals who serve in the executive branch. 

The immigration case stems from the raids Mr. Trump ordered at Los Angeles over the summer, which saw the National Guard and active duty American military personnel deployed to aid the deportation efforts of immigration authorities.

Immigrant rights groups sued and initially won in court to stop what they alleged was racial profiling by federal agents. The Supreme Court on Monday ordered that agents may continue to use language, accents, types of jobs worked, and ethnicity as precursors to stopping individuals while the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals considers the case. 

Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh writes that the government “sometimes makes brief investigative stops” of certain individuals, including “those who gather in locations where people are hired for day jobs” or those “who work or appear to work in jobs such as construction, landscaping, agriculture, or car washes that often do not require paperwork and are therefore attractive to illegal immigrants.”

The justice notes in his explanation that “there is an extremely high number and percentage of illegal immigrants in the Los Angeles area” and “that those individuals tend to gather in certain locations to seek daily work.” He says the immigration enforcement officers should not be barred from conducting investigations in certain areas based on hearing a person speak Spanish because it is reasonably known that “many of those illegally in the Los Angeles area come from Mexico or Central America and do not speak much English.”

Justice Kavanaugh states that “apparent ethnicity alone” is not a reason to stop someone and ask about immigration status, though it can be taken into consideration along with other factors. 

The justice, who was not joined by any of his colleagues in his explanation, chides the district court for opening up immigration enforcement officers to the possibility of facing contempt citations if investigative stops are later found to have been in violation of the injunction. “The prospect of such after-the-fact judicial second-guessing and contempt proceedings will inevitably chill lawful immigration enforcement efforts,” Justice Kavanaugh writes. 

“The Judiciary does not set immigration policy or decide enforcement priorities. It should come as no surprise that some Administrations may be more laissez-faire in enforcing immigration law, and other Administrations more strict,” he adds. “We merely ensure, in justiciable cases, that the Executive Branch acts within the confines of the Constitution and federal statutes.”

A spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, Tricia McLaughlin, wrote on X that the court order is “a win for the safety of Californians and the rule of law.”

The DHS “will not be slowed down and will continue to arrest and remove the murderers, rapists, gang members and other criminal illegal aliens that Karen Bass continues to give safe harbor,” Ms. McLaughlin wrote. The vast majority of those arrested by ICE during Los Angeles immigration enforcement efforts so far have no criminal records. 

Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was joined in her dissent by her two liberal colleagues on the court, could barely hide her frustration with her fellow justices on Monday. She writes that this is just another “grave misuse of our emergency docket.”

“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. Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent,” she writes. 

“The Government, and now the concurrence, has all but declared that all Latinos, U.S. citizens or not, who work low wage jobs are fair game to be seized at any time, taken away from work, and held until they provide proof of their legal status to the agents’ satisfaction,” Justice Sotomayor says. 

The Department of Homeland Security announced Monday that it was deploying ICE agents to Chicago to begin conducting immigration raids similar to the ones at Los Angeles. “Operation Midway Blitz,” as it is being called, could see ICE agents using the same tactics in stopping individuals and questioning them about immigration status based on their work, ethnicity, or accents. 

Mr. Trump won a separate victory at the court on Monday, though again only on a temporary basis. In July, a federal district court judge at Washington, D.C., ruled that the president’s attempt to remove a member of the Federal Trade Commission was “unlawful and without legal effect.” The commissioner in question, Rebecca Slaughter, was first nominated to fill a Democratic seat at the agency by Mr. Trump in 2018 and re-nominated by President Biden in 2023. 

The district court judge in that case stated in her opinion that she was under “no illusions about where this case’s journey leads,” and that the parties were almost certainly going to end up at the Supreme Court in a challenge to Humphrey’s Executor, the landmark 1935 case that affirmed the insulation of FTC members from presidential dismissal. An appeals court ordered last week that Ms. Slaughter be reinstated to her position. 

On Monday, however, Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the district court order was stayed pending appeal, meaning Ms. Slaughter is no longer a member of the FTC — for now. The chief justice, who handles all emergency appeals in the nation’s capital, says Ms. Slaughter must respond to the president’s appeal by next Monday, September 15.