The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures.” It applies to all seizures of a person, including seizures that involve only a brief detention short of traditional arrest. As interpreted by the Supreme Court in an immigration context, except at the border, the Fourth Amendment prohibits immigration enforcement officers to make detentive stops unless they are aware of “specific articulable facts that reasonably warrant suspicion” that the person detained may be illegally in the country. Reasonable suspicion cannot be based on “generalizations” that, if accepted, would cast suspicion on large segments of the law-abiding population. On June 6, 2025, federal law enforcement arrived in Los Angeles to participate in what federal officials have described as “the largest Mass Deportation Operation . . . in History.” U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents and officers were sent to join officers from the Enforcement and Removal Operations directorate of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) to carry out “Operation At Large” in Los Angeles, California. This operation involved teams of three to five agents who temporarily detained individuals in public places such as streets, sidewalks, and publicly accessible portions of businesses, and made arrests for immigration violations. On July 2, five individual plaintiffs and three membership associations sued twelve senior federal officials, who share responsibility for directing federal immigration enforcement in the Los Angeles area, alleging a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Perdomo v. Noem (C. D. Cal). The complaint asserts that by an ongoing policy and/or practice, detentive stops in the Central District of California were being conducted without reasonable suspicion that the person to be stopped is within the United States in violation of U.S. immigration law. Reviewing the evidence offered by the plaintiffs in support of an injunction pending further litigation, the district court found that circumstances surrounding the stops were coercive enough that the interactions were not consensual. The district court also found that the plaintiffs are “likely to succeed in showing that seizures were based only upon four enumerated factors” or a subset of them. Those factors were (1) apparent race or ethnicity; (2) speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent; (3) presence at a particular location; and (4) the type of work one does. The district court then concluded that in the context of the Central District of California, those four enumerated factors — even when considered together — describe only a broad profile and “do not demonstrate reasonable suspicion for any particular stop.” Moreover, the court determined that, despite there being no evidence of an “official policy” of making stops based only on the four factors and without reasonable suspicion, there was sufficient evidence to show that defendants’ agents were routinely doing so. Premised on these conclusions, on July 11, the district enjoined the defendant officials from relying solely on the factors below, alone or in combination, to form reasonable suspicion for a detentive stop: Apparent race or ethnicity; Speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent; Presence at a particular location (e.g., bus stop, car wash, tow yard, day laborer pick up site, agricultural site, etc.); or The type of work one does. The administration appealed the district court’s order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which refused to intervene. Perdomo v. Noem (July 28). The three judge panel determined that “a characteristic common to both legal and illegal immigrants does little to arouse reasonable suspicion.” In the U.S. generally, apparent Hispanic or Latino race or ethnicity generally has limited probative value, because large numbers of native-born and naturalized citizens have the physical characteristics identified with Hispanic or Latino ethnicity. Speaking Spanish and speaking English with an accent are likewise characteristics that apply to a sizable portion of individuals lawfully present in this country. As to location, the Supreme Court has made clear that an individual’s presence at a location that illegal immigrants are known to frequent does little to support reasonable suspicion when U.S. citizens and legal immigrants are also likely to be present at those locations. US v. Brignoni (1975). Like location, the type of work one does is at most “marginally relevant” to establishing reasonable suspicion, even if it is work commonly performed by immigrants without legal status. Evidence that a particular employer is employing a large number of undocumented workers does not create reasonable suspicion as to each individual employee. On August 7, the administration once more sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court. In doing so, the Solicitor General asserts that the injunction entered puts “a straitjacket on law-enforcement efforts.” Although this case arises out of ICE activities in Southern California, the Supreme Court’s ultimate decision will have obvious implications for the practices of ICE agents nationwide. John Christie was for many years a senior partner in a large Washington, D.C. law firm. He specialized in anti-trust litigation and developed a keen interest in the U.S. Supreme Court about which he lectures and writes. 

Across the U.S. food supply chain, more than one in five jobs is carried out by immigrants, the equivalent of 14 million workers across the sector. But many of these foreign-born workers — regardless of legal status — are afraid that they’ll be swept up in the administration’s illegal and cruel arrest, detention, and deportation actions. So, they’ve started staying home. The long-term effects of losing a substantial portion of the workforce will send a shock through the industry: crops will not be harvested, livestock will not be processed, grocery shelves will thin out, restaurants and food trucks will close, and food will get more expensive than it already is.

Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge is threatened by federal budget and staffing cuts. We are fortunate to have this unspoiled, undeveloped public land in Kent County. More than 70,000 people visit ENNWR annually for recreation and to enjoy its natural beauty. In April, Common Sense for the Eastern Shore published an article asking for help in spreading the word about the threat to ENNWR. The need for support in the face of this threat still exists. If you’d like to know more and would like to pitch in to help, Citizens Connect is holding an informational session: Monday, August 18, 5-6:30 pm Unitarian Universalists of the Chester River, 914 Gateway Dr, Chestertown The presentation and discussion will be led by members of the Board of Directors of Friends of Eastern Neck, Bill Burton, president, and Bonnie Ford, vice president. The session will cover how drastic budget cuts to the US Fish & Wildlife Service jeopardize the health of the refuge and threaten its survival. Without adequate staff, Eastern Neck could be “shuttered," public access curtailed, and the Visitors Center closed. Invasive plants would grow unchecked, migratory waterfowl would be at risk, and hunts would end.

Mayor Randy Taylor is once again at the center of controversy after being involved in a traffic incident Monday morning, his fourth car accident in less than two years since taking office. According to Mayor Taylor’s official statemen t, the accident occurred around 8:30 a.m. on South Boulevard and involved a pedestrian using a walker. Taylor described the incident as “minor,” claiming that only the wheel of the pedestrian’s walker made contact with the rear of his city-issued vehicle. He further stated that the pedestrian refused medical treatment and that all protocols were followed. However, eyewitness accounts and photos circulating on social media paint a different picture. A bystander who witnessed the event posted that the mayor struck the pedestrian in the crosswalk and initially continued driving as if he had “hit a cone,” before returning to the scene. The witness described a delayed police response and expressed frustration that no other vehicles stopped to assist. Photos of the aftermath show a visibly shaken pedestrian, leaning on his walker, with Mayor Taylor standing nearby inspecting the damage. The images have sparked widespread outrage across the community. “This is not an isolated event,” said one resident in a viral post. “This is his fourth accident since taking office, and every time it’s brushed off as a ‘minor issue.’ How many more ‘minor issues’ will it take before there’s real accountability?” The mayor’s track record with city vehicles has drawn sharp criticism, with many Salisbury residents demanding answers about why repeated accidents have not resulted in consequences. Previous incidents have ranged from parking lot collisions to property damage, all involving city vehicles. Calls for transparency have intensified, with community members pressing for clarity on whether mandatory post-accident drug and alcohol tests were administered, as required by city policy. Mayor Taylor maintains that all procedures were followed and has promised to share a final report of the incident within 10 days. In the meantime, public confidence continues to erode, with many expressing frustration over what they see as a dangerous pattern of recklessness. “Four accidents in two years,” another commenter posted. “If a city worker had that record, they’d be gone. Why does the mayor get a free pass?” Neither the Salisbury Police Department nor Maryland State Police has issued an official report yet.

On July 14, by a cryptic unsigned and unexplained order, the Supreme Court cleared the way for President Trump to significantly restructure and radically downsize the Department of Education. Linda McMahon, Secretary of Education v. New York . According to Steve Vladeck, law professor at Georgetown and author of the book Shadow Docket , this is the seventh, different, completely unexplained grant of emergency relief to the Trump administration in just the last ten weeks. It is yet another one that will have massive real-world effects long before the justices ever confront whether what the government is doing is actually lawful. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ During his campaign for a second term in office, Donald Trump repeatedly promised to “close up the Department of Education … early in the administration.” Following his election, he asserted that “you can do a lot of things without Congress … including a virtual closure of the Department of Education,” describing the Department’s work as a “big con job.” Later, when nominating Linda McMahon to head the Department, President Trump said that he had directed her “to put herself out of a job.” Consistent with that directive, on her first day as the new Secretary of the Department, McMahon issued a memorandum explaining that she would lead the Department’s “final mission” and fulfill the President’s “campaign promises.” About one week later, on March 11, McMahon announced a “reduction in force” that would eliminate nearly 50% of the Department’s workforce, slashing the number of employees from 4,133 to 2,183. Those terminations would, in effect, do away with whole offices and teams within the Department. For example, the directive terminated: The entire Office of English Language Acquisition, which Congress tasked with administering the Department’s “bilingual education programs” All employees within the Office of the General Counsel that specialize in K–12 education funding Seven of 12 regional divisions of the Office of Civil Rights Most of the Federal Student Aid office responsible for certifying schools so that their students can receive federal financial aid The entire unit of the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services charged with providing technical assistance and guidance on complying with the Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) McMahon subsequently characterized these staff reductions as only “the first step on the road to a total shutdown” of the Department. Following McMahon’s March 11 announcement and the mass termination of Department employees, a group of 20 States, the District of Columbia, several school districts, and unions sued the Department in the federal district court for the district of Massachusetts. They argued that these reductions in force would “effectively dismantle” the Department and “incapacitate” components of the Department responsible for performing functions mandated by Congress. The plaintiffs assert that this unilateral executive action violates the Constitution’s separation of powers, among other violations of law. Following the initiation of the litigation, the plaintiffs urged the district court to enter an injunction against implementation of the administration’s plans, including reinstatement of the terminated employees, while the underlying legal issues remain to be litigated. In support, dozens of affidavits from Department officials and federal funding recipients described the mass termination’s effects on schools and students across the Nation. School districts, one such affidavit averred, depend on timely disbursement of federal funds to pay teachers and to purchase materials and equipment throughout the academic year. Even short-term delays in funding can force school districts “to make cuts … to staff and programs, disrupting services for students and families.” Scores of officials who worked at the Department also attested that the agency would no longer be able to carry out many of its Congressionally mandated duties following the mass termination. The administration, for its part, submitted no evidence to rebut the factual record compiled by the plaintiffs. Nor did it argue that the Executive could singlehandedly abolish the Department. Instead, it simply asserted that the mass terminations fell within the President’s authority because it was only part of an effort to “streamline” the Department. District Court Judge Myong J. Joun granted the requested preliminary injunction request. The court found that “the record abundantly reveals that the administration’s true intention is to effectively dismantle the Department without an authorizing statute,” and that the proposed terminations would prevent the Department from “carrying out its statutory functions.” That unilateral executive action, the District Court concluded, likely violated the separation of powers by being beyond the president’s powers without the consent of Congress. Judge Joun also concluded that a preliminary injunction would serve the public interest “because there is a substantial risk that, without it, there will be significant harm to the functioning of public and higher education, particular in plaintiff States. It is well established that an educated citizenry provides the foundation for our democracy.” The administration subsequently appealed the entry of the injunction to the First Circuit Court of Appeals which left the injunction in place. In an opinion by Chief Judge David Barron, the three-judge appellate panel determined that “we see no basis on which to conclude that the District Court erred in finding that the RIF made it effectively impossible for the Department to carry out its statutory obligations.” In doing so, the First Circuit faulted the administration for not even contesting the intent behind the proposed reduction in force or “the disabling impact of those actions on the Department’s ability to carry out statutorily assigned functions.” The administration then filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court seeking to have the preliminary injunction overturned, the 18th such emergency appeal since the administration arrived in office on January 20. As indicated above, on July 14, the Court granted the motion, allowing the administration to proceed with its plan during however long it takes for the judicial system to ultimately determine the legality of doing so. The Court’s three-sentence order exhibits no indication of the reason(s) behind the majority’s conclusion. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a scathing 19-page dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The opinion begins by asserting that Congress had mandated that the Department of Education play a vital role in this Nation’s education system, safeguarding equal access to learning and channeling billions of dollars to schools and students across the country each year. Federal involvement in education was not a modern phenomenon as, for over 150 years, the Federal Government has played a critical role in supplementing and supporting the education provided by States, localities, and private institutions. However, in 1979, Congress enacted the Department of Education Organization Act to “strengthen the Federal commitment to ensuring access to equal educational opportunity for every individual.” In service of that goal, the Act integrated the Federal Government’s educational programs into a new Cabinet-level agency called the Department of Education. Congress tasked the new agency with administering a broad range of educational programs. For example, the Department runs the federal student financial-aid system, federal grants for higher education institutions, federal work-study program, and federal funding for kindergarten through 12th grade. The scale of these efforts is vast: In June 2025, the Department reported awarding over $120 billion a year in federal student aid to over 13 million students. In 2020–2021, the Federal Government distributed over $100 billion in funding directly to public schools, representing around 11% of all funding for public elementary and secondary schools across the country. Tens of millions of low-income families rely on financial assistance programs administered by the Department. Schools and students in every State rely on federal programs established by Congress and run by the Department. Congress has prohibited the Secretary of Education from “abolishing organizational entities established” in the Department’s basic statute. As for statutory entities later transferred to the Department by Congress, the Secretary may only “consolidate, alter, or discontinue” the entities specifically affected, after providing Congress with 90 days’ advance notice and a “statement of the action proposed … and the facts and circumstances relied upon in support of such proposed action.” The dissenting Justices acknowledged that past presidential administrations have taken different positions on the Department’s value and its proper role in the Nation’s system of education over the years. Presidents Carter and Clinton, for instance, made investing in it a priority. President Reagan, by contrast, submitted a proposal to Congress that would have abolished the Department, though he ultimately withdrew the proposal after it garnered little support in Congress. Until now, however, Presidents have recognized they lack the unilateral authority to eradicate a department that Congress has tasked with fulfilling statutory duties. Undeterred by any limits on executive authority, President Trump has made clear that he intends to close the Department without Congress’s involvement. The dissenters assert that in our constitutional order, Congress “makes laws” and the President “faithfully executes them.” Quoting Justice Robert Jackson in the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co (1952) case, “the Founders of this Nation entrusted the lawmaking power to the Congress alone,” and “there is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the President to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes.” The President thus lacks unilateral authority to close a Cabinet-level agency. In short, as the dissenters see it, “Congress created the Department, and only Congress can abolish it.” Justice Sotomayor contends that “when the Executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the Judiciary’s duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it.” Rather than maintain the status quo pending resolution of the underlying legal issues, this Court now intervenes, lifting the injunction and permitting the administration to proceed with dismantling the Department. Sotomayor concludes that decision is “indefensible.” “The majority is either willfully blind to the implications of its ruling or naive, but either way the threat to our Constitution’s separation of powers is grave.” Rather than contest these principles, the administration in the lower courts contended that the mass terminations were not part of any planned closure, but instead were simply intended to “cut bureaucratic bloat.” According to Justice Sotomayor, the record in the case “unambiguously” refutes that account. Neither the President nor Secretary McMahon, she contends, made any secret of their intent to ignore their constitutional duties. “That the majority of this Court sees fit to repay that obfuscation with emergency equitable relief is troubling.” Justice Sotomayor also contends that the relative harms to the parties are “vastly disproportionate.” While the administration will, no doubt, suffer pocketbook harms from having to pay employees that it sought to fire as the litigation proceeds, the harm to this Nation’s education system and individual students is of a far greater magnitude. Lifting the District Court’s injunction in her opinion will unleash untold harm, delaying or denying educational opportunities without the federal resources Congress intended. “The majority apparently deems it more important to free the Government from paying employees it had no right to fire than to avert these very real harms while the litigation continues. Equity does not support such an inequitable result.” John Christie was for many years a senior partner in a large Washington, D.C. law firm. He specialized in anti-trust litigation and developed a keen interest in the U.S. Supreme Court about which he lectures and writes.