What Did the Supreme Court Decide in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo? (2026)

Fully rewritten and updated October 26, 2026.

As founder of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., a Tampa criminal defense firm, and a former police academy instructor who taught officers the law of stops and searches, I read Vasquez Perdomo as a case about the Fourth Amendment as much as immigration. Many Florida criminal cases now begin with an encounter involving an officer who also holds federal immigration authority. Our attorneys look at how every stop started, because a stop without reasonable suspicion can still lead to suppression of evidence in a Florida criminal case.

What Happened in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo?

The case began as a challenge to immigration sweeps in the Los Angeles area in the summer of 2025. Pedro Vasquez Perdomo and other plaintiffs, along with immigrant rights groups, sued the Department of Homeland Security in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (No. 2:25-cv-05605). They alleged that agents were stopping people at bus stops, car washes, tow yards, farms, and day-labor sites based on how they looked, what language they spoke, where they were, and what work they did.

On July 11, 2025, District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong issued a temporary restraining order that barred stops based solely on four factors, alone or in combination:

1. Apparent race or ethnicity.
2. Speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent.
3. Presence at a particular location, such as a bus stop, car wash, tow yard, day-labor pickup site, or agricultural site.
4. The type of work a person does.

The Ninth Circuit refused to stay that order on August 1, 2025. The government then asked the Supreme Court for emergency relief.

What Did the Supreme Court Decide?

The Supreme Court granted the government’s application and stayed the district court’s order. In Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, 606 U.S. ___, 146 S. Ct. 1 (2025), the Court’s one-paragraph order stayed the July 11 order “pending the disposition of the appeal” in the Ninth Circuit and any timely petition for certiorari. The order did not explain the Court’s reasons, which is common for rulings on the emergency docket.

What Did Justice Kavanaugh’s Concurrence Say?

Justice Kavanaugh wrote that the four factors, taken together, can give agents reasonable suspicion of illegal presence in the Los Angeles area. He wrote: “To be clear, apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion; under this Court’s case law regarding immigration stops, however, it can be a ‘relevant factor’ when considered along with other salient factors.” He relied on the high number of people in the Los Angeles region without legal status, which he put at “about 2 million illegal immigrants out of a total population of 20 million.”

He also described the stops as brief: “If the person is a U. S. citizen or otherwise lawfully in the United States, that individual will be free to go after the brief encounter.” And he concluded that the plaintiffs likely lacked standing to seek a broad, forward-looking injunction under Los Angeles v. Lyons, because they could not show they were likely to be stopped again. Commentators have since used the term “Kavanaugh stop” for a brief immigration stop justified by a combination of these factors.

What Did Justice Sotomayor’s Dissent Say?

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, argued that stops based on the four factors violate the Fourth Amendment because they are not individualized. Quoting earlier precedent, she wrote that a set of facts cannot be reasonable suspicion if it “describe[s] a very large category of presumably innocent” people. She warned that the ruling pushes citizens to carry proof of status to move freely, which she described as creating a second-class citizenship status for people who look or sound a certain way.

How Does Vasquez Perdomo Fit With Brignoni-Ponce?

Vasquez Perdomo builds on a 50-year-old case about roving Border Patrol stops. In United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975), Border Patrol officers in southern California stopped a car only because its three occupants appeared to be of Mexican descent. The Supreme Court held that officers on roving patrol need “specific articulable facts” supporting reasonable suspicion, and that Mexican ancestry “standing alone” does not justify a stop, though it can be “a relevant factor.” Justice Kavanaugh cited that “relevant factor” language; Justice Sotomayor cited the same case for its holding that appearance alone is not enough.

Scholars warned about this tension long before 2025. In “How Racial Profiling in America Became the Law of the Land: United States v. Brignoni-Ponce and Whren v. United States and the Need for Truly Rebellious Lawyering,” 98 Geo. L.J. 1005 (2010), presented at a Georgetown Law Journal symposium, then-Dean Kevin R. Johnson of UC Davis School of Law examined how Brignoni-Ponce’s “relevant factor” language and Whren’s tolerance of pretext stops left room for race to shape enforcement decisions.

Has the Supreme Court Said Anything About Race-Based Stops Since?

Yes. Three months later, in Trump v. Illinois, 607 U.S. 1 (2025), a December 23, 2025 decision about the National Guard deployment in Illinois, Justice Kavanaugh wrote in a concurrence that the Fourth Amendment requires that immigration stops “be based on reasonable suspicion of illegal presence, stops must be brief, arrests must be based on probable cause, and officers must not employ excessive force.” He added: “Moreover, the officers must not make interior immigration stops or arrests based on race or ethnicity.”

Where Does the Vasquez Perdomo Case Stand in 2026?

The Supreme Court’s stay is still the last word on the July 2025 restraining order, and the lawsuit continues in the district court. According to the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse docket summary, the Ninth Circuit sent the case back in October 2025 so the district court could dissolve the Fourth Amendment portion of the restraining order. In 2026, the district court largely denied the government’s motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, and in June 2026 they moved for class certification and a new preliminary injunction against alleged warrantless arrests. As of the most recent docket update we reviewed, those motions had not been decided.

Does Vasquez Perdomo Apply in Florida?

The stay itself applies only to the Los Angeles order, but the reasoning reaches Florida because immigration enforcement here runs heavily through local police and sheriffs. Section 908.11, Florida Statutes, requires every sheriff or chief correctional officer operating a county jail to enter a written 287(g) agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which lets trained local officers perform certain immigration functions.

Participation goes well beyond county jails. A statewide snapshot posted by FDLE, the Immigration Agency Data Summary, which uses ICE and Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission data as of June 2026, shows that 272 of 394 Florida law enforcement agencies held a 287(g) Task Force Officer agreement, and that Florida had 9,026 credentialed designated immigration officers.

That means a stop in Tampa Bay may be made by an officer who can ask both criminal and immigration questions. Justice Kavanaugh’s later statement in Trump v. Illinois, that officers “must not make interior immigration stops or arrests based on race or ethnicity,” is a point our attorneys raise when the facts show appearance or language drove the stop.

Can Evidence From an Unlawful Immigration Stop Be Suppressed in Florida?

In a Florida criminal case, yes, evidence from a stop made without reasonable suspicion can be suppressed under the Fourth Amendment, no matter which agency made the stop. A traffic or street stop that leads to drugs, a weapon, or a no-valid-license charge rises or falls on what the officer knew before the stop. Our Tampa criminal traffic lawyer page covers the license charges that often follow these stops.

Immigration court is different. In INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (1984), the Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule generally does not apply in civil deportation proceedings, while leaving open “egregious violations of Fourth Amendment or other liberties.” So a suppression win in state court does not automatically end an immigration case, and a person facing both needs advice on each. Our firm handles the Florida criminal case and works with the client’s immigration counsel.

What Should You Do If You Are Stopped and Questioned About Immigration Status?

Stay calm, do not run or resist, and do not lie or show false documents. You can ask whether you are free to leave. You can decline to answer questions about where you were born or your immigration status and say you want to speak with a lawyer, though a driver must still produce a license, registration, and proof of insurance on request in Florida. Remember the officer’s name, agency, and badge number, and write down what happened as soon as you can.

If a family member is arrested in Hillsborough County, language matters from the first hearing. Under section 903.046, Florida Statutes, immigration status is one of the factors a judge considers in setting bail, and in the 13th Judicial Circuit, the Court Interpreter Center provides interpreters for first appearance, arraignment, and trial. Our guides to how a bond hearing works in Tampa and to our Spanish-speaking criminal defense team explain what families can expect. For another recent Fourth Amendment decision, see our post on Case v. Montana and police welfare checks.

Frequently Asked Questions About Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo

Did the Supreme Court rule that ICE can use race in immigration stops?

No, the Court issued an unexplained stay, and Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence said apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion, though it can be one factor among others. The Brancato Law Firm reads the stop reports in our clients’ Florida cases to see whether anything beyond appearance or language supported the stop.

Is Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo a final decision?

No, it is an emergency stay that keeps the July 2025 restraining order on hold while the case continues in the lower courts. Our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm follow the litigation because a later ruling could change how courts view these stops.

What is a Kavanaugh stop?

A Kavanaugh stop is a commentator’s term for a brief immigration stop justified by a combination of factors such as location, type of work, language, and apparent ethnicity, based on Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence. The Brancato Law Firm challenges the reasonable suspicion behind any stop that leads to a Florida criminal charge; see our criminal traffic defense page for license cases.

Do I have to answer an officer’s questions about my immigration status in Florida?

No, you generally have the right to remain silent and to ask for a lawyer, but you should not lie, run, or present false documents, and drivers must show a license on request. Our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm, including Spanish-speaking staff, can explain these rights to your family in their own language.

Can a U.S. citizen be detained in an immigration stop?

Yes, the stops allowed by the stay can involve U.S. citizens, and Justice Kavanaugh wrote that a citizen “will be free to go after the brief encounter.” The Brancato Law Firm advises clients who were detained to write down the details right away, because those facts matter if a criminal charge follows.

Can a Florida criminal case be dismissed because of an illegal stop?

Often the remedy is suppression of the evidence, which can lead the State to drop the charge if the evidence was its whole case. Our attorneys at The Brancato Law Firm file motions to suppress in Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco County courts when a stop lacked reasonable suspicion; our Tampa criminal defense team can review the report.

Talk to a Tampa Defense Attorney After a Stop

If a stop led to an arrest, the first decision is whether to challenge how the officer made it, and that review should happen before the arraignment. Call The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., founded by Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney Rocky Brancato, at (813) 727-7159. You can call us at any hour, and our office is two blocks from the courthouse. Our firm has Spanish-speaking staff, and attorney Jean-Luc Adrien speaks Spanish, Haitian Creole, and French, so families can talk with us directly about the criminal case and its immigration consequences.

For more about our defense strategies, visit our Tampa Criminal Traffic Lawyer page.

The Brancato Law Firm, P.A.
620 E. Twiggs Street, Suite 205, Tampa, FL 33602
(813) 727-7159
Serving Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties

The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. is a Tampa-based criminal defense practice. We are not affiliated with any other Brancato-named law firms.