Letters to the Editor: Supreme Court’s ‘roving patrols’ judgment shows little has changed since the 1800s
-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
- The Supreme Court’s immigration ruling allowing racial profiling draws sharp criticism from readers who compare it to historic discrimination cases.
- Letter writers highlight contradictions between the court’s recent affirmative action ban and its approval of ethnicity-based immigration stops.
- Critics warn the decision could drive workers underground and harm California’s economy, with one suggesting boycotting the 2028 Olympics.
To the editor: In 1857, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Roger B. Taney, in his majority opinion returning Dred Scott to slavery, stated that Black people “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”
On Monday, our own Supreme Court under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. held that U.S. immigration agents can snatch people off the street based on how they look, what language they’re speaking, where they’re working or where they happen to be (“Supreme Court upholds ‘roving patrols’ for immigration stops in Los Angeles,” Sept. 8).
It’s hard to not conclude that things haven’t changed much since 1857.
Gordon J. Louttit, Manhattan Beach
..
To the editor: On Sept. 8, Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh concurred that the “apparent ethnicity” of the person stopped “can be a ‘relevant factor’ ” in determining whether the stop violates the Constitution.
On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court held that Harvard’s and the University of North Carolina’s affirmative action programs were unconstitutional, stressing that “eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it,” and “the Equal Protection Clause applies ‘without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality’ — it is ‘universal in [its] application.’ ” Two years ago, eliminating race and ethnic discrimination meant eliminating all of it, but suddenly it doesn’t anymore.
Ira Spiro, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: Now that the Supreme Court has legitimized racial profiling, we might see a real-life version of the 2004 satirical film “A Day Without a Mexican.” The plot is simple: Suddenly, all the Mexicans in California disappear and there are no nannies, gardeners, construction workers, day laborers, line cooks, busboys, car wash employees or farmworkers.
In this new reality, people will now disappear by going underground to avoid being profiled. Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, be careful what you wish for — this will wreak havoc on the lives and pocketbooks of all of us.
Jon Merritt, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: White justice: A Michigan court has ruled “fake electors” allegedly involved in efforts to overturn the 2020 election were trying to seek redress after President Trump’s loss and attempting to perform their civic duties.
Brown justice: Kavanaugh’s repeated characterizations of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents’ treatment of people of color, who are frequently selected with no particularity beyond the color of their skin and where they were working and tackled by multiple masked men in combat gear and carrying assault weapons, as non-burdensome “brief” inquiries into their status.
Both are sad, consequential and wrong.
Marcia Scully, Whittier
..
To the editor: This Supreme Court ruling purports to require ICE agents to have “a reasonable suspicion, based on specific articulable fact” before they can detain someone for questioning. This language is not new. It was adopted decades ago to ensure that police could not stop someone simply for being dark-skinned and wearing a hoodie. Although such factors might make some law enforcement agents suspicious, the court said those suspicions could not be deemed “reasonable” without more.
Kavanaugh’s opinion, declaring that ICE agents can rest their reasonable suspicions on a person speaking Spanish or working at a car wash, turns that time-honored 4th Amendment precedent and protection on its head. In a 2017 opinion rejecting racist expert testimony, Justice Roberts famously wrote, “Some toxins can be deadly in small doses.” He should be ashamed he and his court’s majority refuse to stop the Trump administration from poisoning us and our neighbors.
Amy Donnella, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: This is clearly a historically un-American decision.
Los Angeles and California must respond by informing the Olympic Committee that we have no choice but to decline holding the 2028 Olympics here because we refuse to subject global athletes and visitors to the clearly racist policies of our government. They should not be subjected to the same threats as those of us who live here. Our sincerest apologies to the world.
Richard Green, San Clemente
