1. United States
2. Letter

I write to you with urgency and deep concern regarding the Court’s decision to stay the lower court’s order in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo. The real-world consequences of this stay are unfolding in ways that threaten core constitutional protections and basic human dignity. In the absence of the lower court’s safeguards, ICE and CBP officers appear to be engaging in enforcement practices that rely heavily on perceived race, ethnicity, language, and accent. In practice, this has enabled a pattern of stops and detentions that closely resemble racial profiling. Equally alarming are growing reports that individuals, including United States citizens, are being detained without timely verification of their legal status and without meaningful access to legal counsel. Accounts describe detainees being held for extended periods without being offered the opportunity to contact an attorney, raising serious concerns under the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process. There are also troubling reports that some detainees are not consistently provided with basic necessities such as adequate fluids, access to required medications, or humane conditions during their detention. Following release, some individuals report being left without assistance, including in harsh weather conditions, and without the ability to contact someone to ensure their safety. Particularly disturbing are recent accounts of individuals suffering severe harm after release, including at least one reported death following exposure to extreme cold, which has been described by a coroner as a homicide. In addition, there are ongoing concerns and reports regarding deaths occurring in custody. These incidents underscore the potentially grave consequences of unchecked enforcement practices. Such patterns raise profound constitutional concerns. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fifth Amendment guarantees due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment ensures equal protection under the law. When individuals are stopped, detained, denied basic care or legal access, and subjected to harm based on how they look or speak, and without prompt verification of their legal status, these protections are placed at serious risk. While the Court may not have intended to authorize such outcomes, the practical effect of its stay has been to remove critical guardrails that previously helped prevent these abuses. The Constitution does not permit enforcement practices that erode civil liberties or endanger human life. The lower court’s order served as an essential safeguard against these risks. Reinstating that order while this case proceeds would not impede lawful enforcement; rather, it would ensure that such enforcement remains consistent with constitutional guarantees and fundamental standards of humane treatment. I urge the Court to act swiftly to restore these protections and to consider the tangible harm that is occurring in the absence of judicial restraint.