This is not the title of the article
You would not play on words, if you were "colored".
Title here: U.S. Supreme Court Allows Racial Targeting ICE Raids to Continue in LA
From the HN guidelines: “…please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.”
Better buried than said dishonestly.
Not really. SCOTUS lifted a district court's stay.
Trump wanted that. SCOTUS gave in. The district court now goes back to figuring out what's going on, except with the stay lifted instead of in place. "Allow" is too permissive a term because nothing was sanctioned and eventual challenges based on racial profiling have not been precluded; that's why Reuters didn't use the term.
From a Reddit standard of discussion, "allow" works. If you have any knowledge of our legal system, it misrepresents the opinions.
So no, it isn’t dishonest as this is materially the consequence of their decision. Hypothetical future challenges are not real.
No, within the context of the Supreme Court they didn’t allow it any more than that one district court ruling stopped it. It’s this sort of misinterpretation of what lifting a stay really means for folks on the ground that poisons a lot of lay discussion.
Do we have a source for behavior having changed on the ground?
My understanding is it hadn’t during the appeals process.
PBS: "Supreme Court ends restrictions on LA immigration stops set after agents swept up U.S. citizens"
Politico: "Supreme Court lifts restrictions on ‘roving’ ICE raids in Los Angeles"
WaPo: "Supreme Court lifts limits on immigration raids in the Los Angeles area"
And in practice:
ABC: "Immigrants in Southern California go on high alert after Supreme Court ruling
If you have any knowledge of what is happening on the ground, it fully represents the consequence of the opinions:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/08/us/politics/supreme-court...
The fact that they will make a decision a posteriori about it (in, what, several months? Maybe? There isn't any deadline after the Sept. 24th hearing) doesn't change the fact racial profiling is happening at this very hour because the Supreme Court took the action to go against a lower court that stopped it. You are splitting hairs and playing with words from the comfort of your comfortable armchair, free from any personal concern, with no skin in the game, because "ooooh, someone may misunderstand the Supreme Court's decision scope and breadth, we can't allow that to happen".
I think pretty telling is the court's need to constantly address itself and it's legitimacy in these documents lately.
I'm kind of on a divided opinion on this. This is clearly wrong and bad for America. But it's what the law says, the legislature isn't going to change it, and it's what America voted for. There are deep flaws in our democracy at a structural, legal level and I cannot reasonably expect the Judicial branch to go outside of their lane and solve them anymore than I think a couple of Supreme Court decisions could have avoided the civil war.
This isn't true, and even if Trump had a wide majority to support him (which he didn't have, and hasn't now), you don't live in a "winners-take-all" system. The laws and Constitution have also been voted for.
JumpCrisscross•5mo ago
neuronexmachina•5mo ago
> A Federal District Court found that these raids were part of a pattern of conduct by the Government that likely violated the Fourth Amendment. Based on the evidence before it, the court held that the Government was stopping individuals based solely on four factors: (1) their apparent race or ethnicity; (2) whether they spoke Spanish or English with an accent; (3) the type of location at which they were found (such as a car wash or bus stop); and (4) the type of job they appeared to work. Concluding that stops based on these four factors alone, even when taken together, could not satisfy the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of reasonable suspicion, the District Court temporarily enjoined the Government from continuing its pattern of unlawful mass arrests while it considered whether longer-term relief was appropriate.
> Instead of allowing the District Court to consider these troubling allegations in the normal course, a majority of this Court decides to take the once-extraordinary step of staying the District Court’s order. That decision is yet 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.
xracy•5mo ago
From there, it's on the media to pick up on the plain text of the dissent and actually talk about it for longer, because the majority opinions are like, splitting hairs.