License to Profile : The Dangerous Implications of Noem v. Perdomo

Source: The Atlantic

I have worked to end racial profiling (the use of someone’s perceived race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, etc., to decide who to target for possible criminal activity) for more than two decades. The Supreme Court’s decision this week essentially legalizes the use of this unconstitutional tactic by ICE agents.  

~ ~ ~ ~

On September 8, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision from its controversial “shadow docket” staying a lower-court injunction that barred Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from relying – even in part – on factors like apparent race, ethnicity, language spoken, accent, or being present or working at places such as day-labor sites, car washes, and other locations when detaining people in the Los Angeles area. 

Writing for the Court’s majority, Justice Kavanaugh explained that while a single factor – such as the language someone speaks or their race – cannot alone constitute reasonable suspicion, it can be a “relevant factor” when combined with other considerations. Joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, Justice Sotomayor strongly dissented, warning that the ruling legalizes racial profiling of Latinos and violates the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. 

In practice, this decision means that being perceived as Latino while working at a car wash, for instance, could justify a stop under this new framework. That’s essentially a green light for profiling by any other name.

Although supporters of racial profiling claim it can be an effective tool for law enforcement, evidence repeatedly shows that it is ineffective and costly, wasting limited police resources by casting too wide a net. The failed war on drugs, for instance, which heavily relied on racial profiling to target Black people and other people of color, demonstrated that no amount of profiling influenced drug use or abuse rates across different racial groups. In 2002, when the Washington, D.C. sniper terrorized residents in the area, law enforcement identified the suspects but did not arrest them because they relied on the stereotype of a typical serial killer: a white man acting alone or with an accomplice. The sniper turned out to be an African American man, accompanied by a youth. American history is full of many such examples.

Facts, data, and constitutionality aside, there’s a bigger question we need to ask ourselves: what kind of country do we want to live in? Unless we are among the indigenous peoples of the Americas, most of us or our parents and grandparents are immigrants. And a majority of immigrants, including my family, come to this nation seeking opportunities and a better life. The answer isn’t disrupting or creating fear and chaos in the lives of people who work hard and contribute to our communities. If our immigration system is broken, let’s fix it. If people are hiring undocumented immigrants – often for low-paying jobs that many documented Americans don’t want – let’s hold the employers, who are the real culprits, accountable. 

No matter how hardline revisionists try to falsely claim that enslaving Africans and committing genocide against Indigenous peoples were not as severe as commonly believed, we cannot ignore the truth that this nation (like many others) was founded on principles of white supremacy, often enforced through violent acts of racial profiling. Until we acknowledge and confront this history, its legacy will continue to haunt us. This recent Supreme Court decision moves us further away from addressing that grim past, whose remnants still affect and haunt people of color in America.