The Supreme Court’s 1954 ruling in Brown v. Education Committee created seismic shifts both legally and culturally. It conveyed a strong message that racism would no longer be tolerated under the American Constitution.
However, the reality is more complex. Eliminating racial bias completely from American life or public education is, I think, still a distant goal. Racism has simply found new, more insidious ways to manifest.
On September 8, it was refreshing to see the court take a significant step, permitting actions concerning “how people stop and detain individuals, influenced by accents or their presence in specific areas like farms or pickup sites.”
During the era following Brown, much of the discrimination went underground, with racial sorting happening behind closed doors. Unless the Supreme Court actively challenges this, constitutional principles seem to falter, especially under recent administrations that appear to disregard foundational legal documents.
Oddly, in the case involving ICE, the courts maintained a hands-off approach, allowing the constitution to be challenged rather than upheld.
This was quite unexpected given the court’s rigid adherence to the idea of a “color-blind” constitution. Secretary John Roberts previously emphasized that “the way to stop discrimination based on race is to stop discrimination based on race.”
In 2023, Roberts spearheaded a decision that rolled back affirmative action in higher education, insisting that race should not be a factor in university admissions. He argued that the Equality Protection Clause fundamentally prohibits laws that differentiate based on race or color.
The current Supreme Court seems to interpret constitutional principles flexibly, depending on their utility. The approval of racial profiling practices by ICE agents is particularly telling.
Millions of Americans speak Spanish; targeting them based on that alone sets a troubling precedent.
Racial profiling is inherently flawed. It casts a shadow, making it seem like someone’s race determines their criminality. This isn’t the first instance where the Supreme Court has permitted racial considerations in immigration contexts.
Fifty years ago, a case highlighted that aspects like someone’s “obvious Mexican look” could justify stops. Back then, the argument was not that race should be a primary criteria for such actions.
The recent case involved plaintiffs claiming that ICE agents lacked reasonable cause to detain individuals in Los Angeles. A federal judge, Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, sided with them, ordering a temporary injunction against ICE.
The Supreme Court, however, chose to override that ruling with no detailed reasoning, apart from a comment by Judge Brett Kavanaugh.
Kavanaugh dismissed current happenings in Los Angeles, suggesting that ICE often conducts “quick investigations” and similar stops have been a routine aspect of immigration enforcement. He clarified that ethnicity alone cannot establish reasonable doubt but could be a “related factor” in assessing the overall situation.
Judge Sonia Sotomayor strongly disagreed with Kavanaugh’s views. In her dissent, she pointed out that his reasoning implies millions must “endure living in a nation where the government appears to target Latinos and Spanish speakers in low-wage jobs.”
She stressed that the government’s approach has gained tacit approval from the court, reflecting a troubling trend.
This reasoning aligns suspiciously with the mechanics of a police state, a deeply concerning development for the Supreme Court to endorse.
The justices who ruled on Brown would likely be alarmed to see their legacy clouded by today’s acceptance of race’s destructive use, as highlighted by Sotomayor. It is crucial that we support those currently facing racial discrimination, irrespective of our background.
Austin SaratoWilliam Nelson Cromwell is a professor of law and political science at Amherst College.
