Fourth Amendment on ICE: Reasonable Suspicion After Perdomo

This event is at capacity and is no longer accepting RSVPs.

In June, the federal government began what some officials described as the “largest Mass Deportation Operation” in U.S. history. As part of that operation, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) undertook mass immigration raids and arrests in Los Angeles, sparking community outrage, protests, and litigation. 

One such case, brought by a group including both U.S. citizens and undocumented immigrants, claimed the operation amounted to an “illegal detention and deportation dragnet” that relied upon broad racial and ethnic profiling rather than specific articulable suspicion. A federal district judge agreed, issuing a preliminary injunction against the suspicionless stops. 

In early September, the Supreme Court stayed the injunction in response to an emergency appeal, with Justice Kavanaugh writing separately to reaffirm that it is reasonable to conduct stops based solely upon a combination of apparent race and ethnicity, speaking Spanish or accented English, presence as low wage job sites, and presence in locations where undocumented immigrants are known to gather, including city bus stops.

Professors Amna A. Akbar, Nadia Anguiano '17, Linus Chan, and Emmanuel Mauleón invite Minnesota Law students to a panel discussion on Perdomo’s immigration and policing ramifications, its endorsement of racial, class, and cultural profiling as reasonable suspicion, and other related issues.

Lunch will be provided from Salsa a la Salsa.