Most Americans, across the political spectrum, agree that moneyed interests have too much influence over politics in the United States, yet the Supreme Court has made it difficult to do anything about it.
On this episode of "Toppling the Duopoly," host Shawn Griffiths and Jeff Clements, president of American Promise, discuss overcoming partisan the barriers to approving a 28th Amendment that could reduce the influence of big money.
The Supreme Court’s stay in Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem restores ICE authority in Los Angeles, igniting national debate over racial profiling, constitutional rights, and immigration enforcement.
Introduction
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in September 2025 to stay a lower court’s order in Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem marks a significant development in the ongoing debate over the balance between immigration enforcement and constitutional protections. The decision temporarily lifted a district court’s restrictions on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations in the Los Angeles area, allowing agents to resume certain enforcement practices while litigation continues. Although the decision does not resolve the underlying constitutional issues, it does have significant implications for immigration policy, law enforcement authority, and civil liberties.
Background
In June 2025, the Trump administration ordered large-scale ICE raids across the Los Angeles region, which had declared itself a “sanctuary” for undocumented immigrants in November 2024. Following these operations, in July 2025, Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) in Perdomo v. Noem. The TRO barred ICE officers from relying on specific factors as the sole or combined basis for establishing “reasonable suspicion” during detentive stops.
The TRO prohibited reliance on:
The Department of Justice (DOJ) appealed the order, arguing that it hindered ICE’s ability to enforce federal laws. The Ninth Circuit partially narrowed, but largely upheld, the restrictions. On August 7, 2025, the U.S. Government, represented by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Secretary Noem, petitioned the Supreme Court for emergency relief, claiming the lower court’s order threatened to impede ICE operations in an area where roughly 10 percent of residents are undocumented.
On September 8, 2025, the Supreme Court in a 6-3 vote granted a stay pending appeal–temporarily halting the TRO issued by the lower court, and restoring ICE enforcement authority in the Los Angeles region. No majority opinion was issued–Justice Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion is the only guiding insight offered for the decision. The decision occurs within a broader context of the Trump Administration’s stepped-up immigration enforcement. According to TRAC immigration data, arrest locations are concentrated in states like Texas, California, and Florida, with a majority of those detained having no criminal conviction. As of September 21, 2025, there were 59,762 people in ICE detention nationwide.
Arguments in Favor of the Supreme Court Decision
Supporters of the Supreme Court’s decision suggest that the stay allows the federal government to continue enforcing immigration laws effectively, free from unnecessary limitations. Justice Kavanaugh expressed, in his concurring opinion, that the government would likely suffer irreparable harm if the TRO remained in place given the scale of illegal immigration in Los Angeles–estimated at two million individuals, or about 10 percent of the regional population. Proponents, including DHS Security spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin, claim the decision enables ICE to continue removing dangerous criminal aliens, including gang members and violent offenders. The government argued that officers should be able to rely on behavioral and contextual clues—such as language or worksite patterns—when conducting immigration enforcement in high-traffic regions, suggesting that restricting these factors creates unrealistic barriers to effective enforcement.
In addition, supporters claim that ethnicity is a relevant factor to consider for immigration enforcement. Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence drew on the 1975 Supreme Court precedent in United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, which allows ethnicity to be one factor–though not the sole factor–in forming reasonable suspicion for immigration stops near the border. Moreover, he reasoned that ethnicity, language, and location could serve as relevant indicators when considered alongside other facts in regions with high levels of unauthorized migration. Supporters of the decision contend that such “common-sense” criteria reflect demographic and situational realities rather than racial bias, a view articulated in Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence.
Proponents also interpret the ruling as a win for rule of law and public safety – reaffirming the nation’s immigration laws and the executive branch’s authority to enforce them. Statements from DHS and conservative Members of Congress such as Jodey Arrington, praised the decision as ensuring that federal courts do not undermine national immigration policy. Kavanaugh noted that undocumented immigrants are not only violating the immigration laws, but also jumping in front of those noncitizens who follow the rules and wait in line. Kavanaugh further cautioned that Article III judges are not appointed to make enforcement policy, noting that while administrations may vary in approach, it is not the judiciary’s role to dictate immigration enforcement priorities. Supporters see this as reinforcing the separation of powers and preserving the executive’s discretion in law enforcement.
Arguments Against the Supreme Court Decision
Opponents of the decision argue that it could lead to an increased risk of racial profiling and intimidation. Critics, such as the American Immigration Council (AIC), argue the ruling effectively greenlights racial profiling, allowing ICE to engage in “roving patrols” meant to target individuals based on appearance, language, or occupation. The district and appellate courts had previously determined that these practices amounted to unconstitutional racial profiling. Justice Sotomayor’s dissent warned that the ruling risks turning Latinos into second-class citizens, allowing the government to seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low-wage job. Stanford Law professor, Jennifer M. Chacón, emphasizes that nearly half of Los Angeles residents identify as Hispanic, while roughly one-third of undocumented immigrants nationwide come from non-Latin American countries–making ethnicity a poor proxy for immigration status. Opponents, such as the Feminist Majority Foundation (FMF), also argue that such reasoning reinforces existing stereotypes of Latino and immigrant communities as inherently criminal, increasing fear and distrust between law enforcement and residents.
The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. Under the Fourth Amendment, a search ordinarily must be based on individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. Sotomayor argued that, based on the legal standard set in Terry v. Ohio (1968), ICE’s reliance on broad factors like appearance, language, and type of work fails to meet the constitutional requirement for individualized, articulable suspicion. She further claims these factors describe a very large category of presumably innocent people, violating the principle of freedom from arbitrary interference by law officers. The ACLU similarly warned that the decision erodes protections for both citizens and noncitizens by expanding the scope of “reasonable suspicion” to include racial or cultural characteristics.
Critics, including the AIC, further caution that the ruling could embolden ICE to conduct more aggressive operations–heightening risks of wrongful arrest, violence, and mistreatment in detention. Sotomayor’s dissent highlights how past raids in Los Angeles have involved armed, masked agents using force, sometimes detaining U.S. citizens and lawful residents. FMF has stated that these aggressive immigration crackdowns have been accompanied by an increase in gender-based and sexual violence. They bring up reports that point to a history of sexual assault, health neglect, and abuse within ICE detention facilities, disproportionately harming women and children. In addition, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has found deficiencies in DHS and ICE field operations and oversight—particularly related to environmental health and safety, such as water quality, and food service, such as sanitary conditions. Opponents argue that expanded enforcement may exacerbate these human rights concerns.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s stay in Vasquez Perdomo v. Noemdoes not resolve the underlying constitutional questions surrounding immigration enforcement. Instead, it merely stays the TRO while litigation continues, potentially setting the stage for a future Supreme Court hearing. In the short term, the ruling effectively reauthorizes ICE operations across Los Angeles and similar jurisdictions, allowing enforcement practices halted by the lower court to resume—an outcome visible in the expanded raids currently taking place in cities like Chicago. If the Court ultimately upholds these practices in an official ruling, it could significantly broaden the permissible use of appearance, language, and work-related factors in determining reasonable suspicion nationwide. The decision aligns with President Trump’s broader immigration agenda, particularly visible in the framework of the recently adopted One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), which emphasizes expanded federal and state-level immigration enforcement authority. Longer-term, the outcome could shape the balance between public safety, immigration enforcement, and constitutional protections—issues likely to remain contested as appeals and potential legislation continue.
Kallista Ramirez is a recent first-generation Hispanic graduate from the University of Miami, where she earned a B.A. in Political Science with a minor in Health Management and Policy.
Public Safety or Profiling? Implications of Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem for Immigration Enforcement in the U.S. was originally published by the Alliance for Civic Engagement and is republished with permission.
The Supreme Court’s stay in Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem restores ICE authority in Los Angeles, igniting national debate over racial profiling, constitutional rights, and immigration enforcement.
Introduction
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in September 2025 to stay a lower court’s order in Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem marks a significant development in the ongoing debate over the balance between immigration enforcement and constitutional protections. The decision temporarily lifted a district court’s restrictions on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations in the Los Angeles area, allowing agents to resume certain enforcement practices while litigation continues. Although the decision does not resolve the underlying constitutional issues, it does have significant implications for immigration policy, law enforcement authority, and civil liberties.
Background
In June 2025, the Trump administration ordered large-scale ICE raids across the Los Angeles region, which had declared itself a “sanctuary” for undocumented immigrants in November 2024. Following these operations, in July 2025, Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) in Perdomo v. Noem. The TRO barred ICE officers from relying on specific factors as the sole or combined basis for establishing “reasonable suspicion” during detentive stops.
The TRO prohibited reliance on:
The Department of Justice (DOJ) appealed the order, arguing that it hindered ICE’s ability to enforce federal laws. The Ninth Circuit partially narrowed, but largely upheld, the restrictions. On August 7, 2025, the U.S. Government, represented by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Secretary Noem, petitioned the Supreme Court for emergency relief, claiming the lower court’s order threatened to impede ICE operations in an area where roughly 10 percent of residents are undocumented.
On September 8, 2025, the Supreme Court in a 6-3 vote granted a stay pending appeal–temporarily halting the TRO issued by the lower court, and restoring ICE enforcement authority in the Los Angeles region. No majority opinion was issued–Justice Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion is the only guiding insight offered for the decision. The decision occurs within a broader context of the Trump Administration’s stepped-up immigration enforcement. According to TRAC immigration data, arrest locations are concentrated in states like Texas, California, and Florida, with a majority of those detained having no criminal conviction. As of September 21, 2025, there were 59,762 people in ICE detention nationwide.
Arguments in Favor of the Supreme Court Decision
Supporters of the Supreme Court’s decision suggest that the stay allows the federal government to continue enforcing immigration laws effectively, free from unnecessary limitations. Justice Kavanaugh expressed, in his concurring opinion, that the government would likely suffer irreparable harm if the TRO remained in place given the scale of illegal immigration in Los Angeles–estimated at two million individuals, or about 10 percent of the regional population. Proponents, including DHS Security spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin, claim the decision enables ICE to continue removing dangerous criminal aliens, including gang members and violent offenders. The government argued that officers should be able to rely on behavioral and contextual clues—such as language or worksite patterns—when conducting immigration enforcement in high-traffic regions, suggesting that restricting these factors creates unrealistic barriers to effective enforcement.
In addition, supporters claim that ethnicity is a relevant factor to consider for immigration enforcement. Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence drew on the 1975 Supreme Court precedent in United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, which allows ethnicity to be one factor–though not the sole factor–in forming reasonable suspicion for immigration stops near the border. Moreover, he reasoned that ethnicity, language, and location could serve as relevant indicators when considered alongside other facts in regions with high levels of unauthorized migration. Supporters of the decision contend that such “common-sense” criteria reflect demographic and situational realities rather than racial bias, a view articulated in Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence.
Proponents also interpret the ruling as a win for rule of law and public safety – reaffirming the nation’s immigration laws and the executive branch’s authority to enforce them. Statements from DHS and conservative Members of Congress such as Jodey Arrington, praised the decision as ensuring that federal courts do not undermine national immigration policy. Kavanaugh noted that undocumented immigrants are not only violating the immigration laws, but also jumping in front of those noncitizens who follow the rules and wait in line. Kavanaugh further cautioned that Article III judges are not appointed to make enforcement policy, noting that while administrations may vary in approach, it is not the judiciary’s role to dictate immigration enforcement priorities. Supporters see this as reinforcing the separation of powers and preserving the executive’s discretion in law enforcement.
Arguments Against the Supreme Court Decision
Opponents of the decision argue that it could lead to an increased risk of racial profiling and intimidation. Critics, such as the American Immigration Council (AIC), argue the ruling effectively greenlights racial profiling, allowing ICE to engage in “roving patrols” meant to target individuals based on appearance, language, or occupation. The district and appellate courts had previously determined that these practices amounted to unconstitutional racial profiling. Justice Sotomayor’s dissent warned that the ruling risks turning Latinos into second-class citizens, allowing the government to seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low-wage job. Stanford Law professor, Jennifer M. Chacón, emphasizes that nearly half of Los Angeles residents identify as Hispanic, while roughly one-third of undocumented immigrants nationwide come from non-Latin American countries–making ethnicity a poor proxy for immigration status. Opponents, such as the Feminist Majority Foundation (FMF), also argue that such reasoning reinforces existing stereotypes of Latino and immigrant communities as inherently criminal, increasing fear and distrust between law enforcement and residents.
The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. Under the Fourth Amendment, a search ordinarily must be based on individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. Sotomayor argued that, based on the legal standard set in Terry v. Ohio (1968), ICE’s reliance on broad factors like appearance, language, and type of work fails to meet the constitutional requirement for individualized, articulable suspicion. She further claims these factors describe a very large category of presumably innocent people, violating the principle of freedom from arbitrary interference by law officers. The ACLU similarly warned that the decision erodes protections for both citizens and noncitizens by expanding the scope of “reasonable suspicion” to include racial or cultural characteristics.
Critics, including the AIC, further caution that the ruling could embolden ICE to conduct more aggressive operations–heightening risks of wrongful arrest, violence, and mistreatment in detention. Sotomayor’s dissent highlights how past raids in Los Angeles have involved armed, masked agents using force, sometimes detaining U.S. citizens and lawful residents. FMF has stated that these aggressive immigration crackdowns have been accompanied by an increase in gender-based and sexual violence. They bring up reports that point to a history of sexual assault, health neglect, and abuse within ICE detention facilities, disproportionately harming women and children. In addition, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has found deficiencies in DHS and ICE field operations and oversight—particularly related to environmental health and safety, such as water quality, and food service, such as sanitary conditions. Opponents argue that expanded enforcement may exacerbate these human rights concerns.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s stay in Vasquez Perdomo v. Noemdoes not resolve the underlying constitutional questions surrounding immigration enforcement. Instead, it merely stays the TRO while litigation continues, potentially setting the stage for a future Supreme Court hearing. In the short term, the ruling effectively reauthorizes ICE operations across Los Angeles and similar jurisdictions, allowing enforcement practices halted by the lower court to resume—an outcome visible in the expanded raids currently taking place in cities like Chicago. If the Court ultimately upholds these practices in an official ruling, it could significantly broaden the permissible use of appearance, language, and work-related factors in determining reasonable suspicion nationwide. The decision aligns with President Trump’s broader immigration agenda, particularly visible in the framework of the recently adopted One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), which emphasizes expanded federal and state-level immigration enforcement authority. Longer-term, the outcome could shape the balance between public safety, immigration enforcement, and constitutional protections—issues likely to remain contested as appeals and potential legislation continue.
Kallista Ramirez is a recent first-generation Hispanic graduate from the University of Miami, where she earned a B.A. in Political Science with a minor in Health Management and Policy.
Public Safety or Profiling? Implications of Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem for Immigration Enforcement in the U.S. was originally published by the Alliance for Civic Engagement and is republished with permission.
In a bold move to revitalize democratic institutions and civic engagement, two national nonprofits—Bridge Alliance and the National Academy of Public Administration—have launched the Fellows for Democracy and Public Service Initiative. Announced this week in Washington, D.C., the program is designed to cultivate distributed leadership and generate actionable reforms across six critical sectors of American democracy.
Rather than replicating traditional governance structures, the fellowship embraces a dynamic ecosystem model. Fellows will act as conveners, connectors, and catalysts—amplifying field insights, shaping democratic narratives, and fostering resilience through shared leadership.
“This isn’t just a program launch—it’s the construction of a leadership infrastructure for the future of American democracy,” said David Nevins, founder and board chair of Bridge Alliance.
James-Christian Blockwood, President and CEO of the Academy, emphasized the initiative’s pragmatic focus: “We’re not here to raise awareness. We’re here to produce executable action plans—translating research and dialogue into tangible reforms.”
The Fellows for Democracy and Public Service Initiative is anchored in six vital sectors that collectively shape the health and future of American democracy.
The first, Public Service Leadership and Civil Service Reform, focuses on modernizing the federal workforce—reimagining recruitment, development, and retention strategies to cultivate agile, mission-driven public leaders who can navigate complexity and deliver results.
In the Voting and Elections sector, Fellows will examine the full spectrum of electoral administration—from voter registration to ballot security—offering reforms that enhance transparency, impartiality, and public trust, including ethics standards and safeguards against political interference.
The Bridging & Dialogue sector addresses the urgent need to foster mutual understanding across ideological, cultural, and generational divides, elevating practices that promote respectful engagement and shared civic purpose.
Meanwhile, Electoral Systems Reform explores structural innovations such as ranked-choice voting, gerrymandering reform, and campaign finance transparency, aiming to strengthen fair representation and robust competition.
In Trustworthy Information, Fellows will work to restore a shared civic reality by advancing rigorous data practices and reliable reporting—empowering citizens to interpret trends and advocate for evidence-based change.
Finally, the Pluralism sector celebrates America’s diversity, amplifying stories of coexistence, conflict, and cultural evolution to reimagine a republic where every voice matters and every story counts. Together, these sectors form a blueprint for democratic renewal rooted in collaboration, expertise, and civic imagination.
The fellowship will contribute to the Academy’s broader Celebrating the American Public Servant (CAPS) initiative, which honors the often-unsung heroes of government service. CAPS aims to restore public trust by spotlighting excellence and integrity across all levels of public administration.
*David Nevins is the publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Robert Reich, Heather Lofthouse, and others ask: How can Americans make real change? The answer lies in building relationships that drive lasting advocacy.
Last month, Heather Lofthouse, President of Inequality Media (IM), told IM’s co-founder Robert Reich about the Q&A she led in Santa Barbara, California, after a showing of “The Last Class”, a new film about Reich.
“….Seeing the film with all these people,” Lofthouse said, “…who are just saying ‘What do we do? How do we remain active, and how do we become activists every day in different ways?’ People are just so hungry for hope and hungry to do [something]….”
Two weeks later, Financial Times business columnist Rana Foroohar asked Harvard Political Philosophy Professor Michael Sandel a similar question.
“….How can we save our political commons without another Great Depression, or some terrible event that Trump can’t talk his way out of? Where is the low-hanging fruit? I’m hoping that you can give our readers not only big thoughts, but some practical action points too….”
From ordinary Americans at a Q&A in Santa Barbara to a Financial Times columnist, the question is the same: “What can we do?”
In September, Reich offered five steps to make a difference: 1) "Call your officials in Washington, 2) Attend Town Halls, 3) Join local resistance groups, 4) Boycott corporations and organizations that are caving to Trump, and 5) Protect the most vulnerable.”
These are all key actions, brilliant even, but there’s one crucial piece missing that rarely makes these lists: building relationships with members of Congress and their staff. I can see the eye-rolling already, but hear me out.
Elon Musk, with the full support of Donald Trump and Marco Rubio, decimated the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)—America’s most effective soft power tool. For decades, USAID has saved lives, tracked disease outbreaks, and stabilized conflict zones. Compared to the 1980s, its work now helps save an estimated 10 million young lives a year.
In May, Bill Gates spoke about Musk in an interview with the Financial Times: “The picture of the world's richest man killing the world's poorest children is not a pretty one.”
Lawrence O’Donnell was more brutal in his assessment on MSNBC that same month, “….Elon Musk commits the greatest crime of the 21st Century against the poverty population of the world and fires everyone who would be able to quantify for us the enormity of the crime….”
Phone calls to Washington and town halls matter. But you don’t reverse damage like that without building relationships, something that groups like the anti-poverty lobby RESULTS have done for more than 40 years.
Those relationships make transformational advocacy possible and deliver actions like this.
On May 16, after months of work, Representatives Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Salazar (R-FL), Jacobs (D-CA), and McGovern (D-MA) sent a bipartisan letter to key appropriators calling for robust funding for Maternal and Child Health programs, Gavi (the Vaccine Alliance), and nutrition initiatives. 128 members of the U.S. House signed on.
That letter mattered. Two months later, the House Appropriations Committee rejected Trump’s proposed 90 percent cut to global maternal and child health—from $915 million in fiscal year 2025 (FY25) to $85 million in FY26. Instead, the House Appropriations Committee restored the entire $915 million.
You don’t get bipartisan lead signers, especially on foreign aid, without relationships. You don’t get 128 members of the House signing a letter without relationships. And you don’t get the full appropriations committee rejecting Trump's cuts without relationships.
Ordinary Americans made those phone calls and attended town hall meetings, but they went further. They build trust and influence through face-to-face relationships with their members of Congress. And when those members retire or lose re-election, the advocates start again with their successors.
So when people ask, “What can we do?”—one answer that’s too often left off the list is this one: Join an organization that works to deliver transformational advocacy, that feeds you power and helps you build relationships with your members of Congress. That’s how democracy begins to heal.
