the Supreme Court’s “Shadow Docket” Ruling on I.C.E.

Nov. 6, 2025 | Case: Noem v. Vasquez-Perdomo | Article by Audrey Herrera

Officially known as Noem v. Vasquez-Perdomo, the case challenged how Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers decide whom to stop or question during raids and workplace operations. The Supreme Court used an emergency order (known as the shadow docket) to pause a lower-court restriction that had limited ICE’s ability to make stops based on appearance, accent, or workplace.

Highlights

• In Noem v. Vasquez-Perdomo (2025), the U.S. Supreme Court used the shadow docket (emergency orders without full hearings or written opinions)  to lift a lower court’s block on certain immigration stops.
  According to SCOTUSblog, this allowed federal officers to resume broader enforcement while the case continues.
  
  

• The injunction had stopped ICE from targeting people based mainly on physical appearance, language, or workplace location, factors closely tied to ethnicity or national origin.
  The American Immigration Council explained that the rule required “reasonable suspicion” to be specific to each person, not generalized traits.
  
  

What Changed

• Before the case:
  ICE officers in the Los Angeles region had to follow a 2024 injunction requiring individualized suspicion, not assumptions based on group traits.
  According to the Supreme Court docket, that rule was paused in July 2025.
  
  

• After the stay:
  ICE may again conduct operations based on broader enforcement criteria.
  The Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC) warns that this could increase workplace and neighborhood raids, especially in industries with large immigrant workforces.
  
  

Who’s Most Affected

• Immigrant communities of all backgrounds —
  The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) says that people with limited English proficiency, foreign accents, or who work in certain industries may now face higher scrutiny regardless of nationality or legal status.
  
  

• U.S. citizens and legal residents —
  The American Immigration Council notes that ICE operations sometimes involve citizens who fit the same demographic or linguistic profile, meaning misidentification remains a risk.
  
  

• Local governments and police —
  City and county agencies must now determine how to cooperate with federal enforcement while upholding civil rights laws and maintaining community trust.
  
  

• Courts and oversight bodies —
  As SCOTUSblog observes, emergency orders like this one can make it harder for lower courts to interpret how constitutional protections apply.
  
  

In Summary

The Supreme Court’s shadow-docket ruling in Noem v. Vasquez-Perdomo signals a major shift in immigration enforcement authority.
While technically temporary, it allows ICE to resume stops that had been restricted for potential racial profiling concerns,  affecting immigrants, citizens, and mixed-status communities alike.

Beyond immigration, this case highlights a growing debate over how the Court uses the shadow docket to make fast, high-impact decisions without full public transparency.
As the case proceeds, the final ruling will determine whether race-linked enforcement violates constitutional protections,  but until then, the boundaries of ICE authority remain in flux.

🔎 Learn More About Shadow Docket:

• What Is the Supreme Court?

• What is the Shadow Docket?