Supreme Court Actions Enabling Unchecked Immigration Enforcement by ICE

I write to object to this Court’s recent pattern of emergency stays and deference that have the practical effect of enabling unchecked immigration enforcement by ICE. By repeatedly suspending lower-court limits on enforcement practices through the shadow docket, without full briefing or explanation, the Court has removed meaningful judicial restraint at moments when constitutional rights are most at risk. These actions signal to federal agents that aggressive tactics will proceed without timely judicial scrutiny. The predictable result is escalation. When courts step back, history suggests that force fills the vacuum. The harms that follow — unlawful stops, excessive force, and lethal encounters — do not occur in a legal void. They occur in a framework this Court has chosen to permit. The Constitution does not require the judiciary to defer when executive action threatens Fourth Amendment protections or equal protection under the law. To the contrary, it demands vigilance. When that vigilance is withheld, responsibility is not abstract. It is institutional. I urge the Court to reconsider the routine use of emergency stays in immigration cases and to reaffirm that constitutional limits apply fully to federal immigration enforcement. Lives are affected by these choices, and the consequences now rest, in part, with this Court.