Justice Sonia Sotomayor had harsh words for the Supreme Court in her dissent in a ruling allowing Immigration and Customs Enforcement to continue to arrest people based on profiling Latinos working low-wage jobs.

Monday morning, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an emergency decision in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo. The case concerns “Operation At Large,” which deployed ICE agents in the Los Angeles area to car washes, bus stops, farms and other locations believed to be frequented by Latino people who may or may not be undocumented immigrants. On July 11, the Central District Court of California ruled that ICE had to stop Operation At Large until appeals in the case could be heard.

The Court’s ruling contained no official explanation for the ruling, however Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a concurrence. In his concurrence, Kavanaugh said the law allowed ICE to “‘briefly detain’ an individual ‘for questioning’” if they have “a reasonable suspicion, based on specific articulable facts, that the person being questioned . . . is an alien illegally in the United States.”

READ MORE: Loyalty Litmus Test? Trump Allies Quietly Prep SCOTUS Short List

Operation At Large, he said, represented “reasonable suspicion” to detain someone on the following factors: “(i) presence at particular locations such as bus stops, car washes, day laborer pickup sites, agricultural sites, and the like; (ii) the type of work one does; (iii) speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent; and (iv) apparent race or ethnicity.”

He added that “apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion” but could be a “‘relevant factor,” and that if someone detained by ICE turned out to be a citizen, they would be “free to go after the brief encounter.”

Sotomayor disagreed that this is what was happening, citing what had happened to other citizens. Jason Gavidia worked at a Los Angeles tow yard that ICE stopped at. Agents repeatedly asked if he was a citizen. They then took his phone, pushed him against a metal fence, twisted his arm, and took away his identification, according to Sotomayor’s dissent.

“Other Operation At Large encounters have included even more force and even fewer questions. For example, agents pulled up in four unmarked cars to a bus stop in Pasadena; ‘the doors opened and men in masks with guns started running at’ three Latino men who were having their morning coffee, waiting to be picked up for work,” she wrote.

“In Glendale, nearly a dozen masked agents with guns ‘jumped out of . . . cars’ at a Home Depot, and began ‘chasing’ and ‘tackl[ing]’ Latino day laborers without ‘identify[ing] themselves as ICE or police, ask[ing] questions, or say[ing] anything else.’ In downtown Los Angeles, agents ‘jumped out of a van, rushed up to [a tamale vendor], surrounded him, and handled him violently,’ all ‘[w]ithout asking . . . any questions.'”

Sotomayor concluded that Operation At Large and the Court’s decision “all but declared that all Latinos, U. S. citizens or not, who work low wage jobs are fair game to be seized at any time, taken away from work, and held until they provide proof of their legal status to the agents’ satisfaction.”

She also condemned the court for not issuing an explanation beyond the concurrence. She alleged that the Court had been eager to “circumvent the ordinary appellate process” when it comes to President Donald Trump and his administration.

“Some situations simply cry out for an explanation, such as when the Government’s conduct flagrantly violates the law,” Sotomayor wrote, adding that Operation At Large and the Court’s ruling clearly violates the Bill of Rights.

“The Fourth Amendment protects every individual’s constitutional right to be ‘free from arbitrary interference by law officers.’ After today, that may no longer be true for those who happen to look a certain way, speak a certain way, and appear to work a certain type of legitimate job that pays very little. Because this is unconscionably irreconcilable with our Nation’s constitutional guarantees, I dissent,” she wrote.

Image via Shutterstock

Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned that the Supreme Court’s Friday morning ruling that courts cannot tell the federal government not to enforce an executive order is a slippery slope.

The court ruled 6-3 along ideological lines in Trump’s favor in Trump v. CASA, Inc.. The case hinged on whether or not lower courts had the ability to issue injunctions stopping the federal government from following executive orders. In this case, the executive order in question would end birthright citizenship—a right enshrined in the 14th Amendment since 1868—for children born to undocumented immigrants in the United States.

The 14th Amendment lays out the rules granting citizenship. Section 1 begins “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

The Court ruled that lower courts cannot issue a “universal injunction” against an executive order. Rather, individuals must sue for relief under an injunction. The ruling gives an example of an individual pregnant person suing to ensure citizenship for their child. The Court says that if the executive order is stopped against that individual, their “complete relief” will not be “any more complete” if the order applies to everyone.

“When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too. The Government’s applications for partial stays of the preliminary injunctions are granted, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue,” the ruling read.

READ MORE: Over Two-Thirds of Voters In Favor of Birthright Citizenship as SCOTUS Set to Decide

In her dissent, Sotomayor called out the Trump administration for attempting to do an end-run around the Constitution and succeeding.

“It is now the President who attempts, in an Executive Order (Order or Citizenship Order), to repudiate birthright citizenship. Every court to evaluate the Order has deemed it patently unconstitutional and, for that reason, has enjoined the Federal Government from enforcing it,” she wrote.

“The Government does not ask for complete stays of the injunctions, as it ordinarily does before this Court. Why? The answer is obvious: To get such relief, the Government would have to show that the Order is likely constitutional, an impossible task in light of the Constitution’s text, history, this Court’s precedents, federal law, and Executive Branch practice. So the Government instead tries its hand at a different game. It asks this Court to hold that, no matter how illegal a law or policy, courts can never simply tell the Executive to stop enforcing it against anyone,” Sotomayor continued.

“The gamesmanship in this request is apparent and the Government makes no attempt to hide it. Yet, shamefully, this Court plays along.”

Sotomayor argues that the Trump v. CASA, Inc. ruling now opens the door for any rights in the Constitution to be stripped from Americans via executive order. She specifically says that the ruling could be used by a “different administration … to seize firearms from lawabiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship,” two frequent bugbears of the right.

“The majority holds that, absent cumbersome class-action litigation, courts cannot completely enjoin even such plainly unlawful policies unless doing so is necessary to afford the formal parties complete relief. That holding renders constitutional guarantees meaningful in name only for any individuals who are not parties to a lawsuit. Because I will not be complicit in so grave an attack on our system of law, I dissent,” Sotomayor wrote.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a concurring dissent, where she said she agreed with Sotomayor, but also called the ruling “an existential threat to the rule of law.”

“Focusing on inapt comparisons to impotent English tribunals, the majority ignores the Judiciary’s foundational duty to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States. The majority’s ruling thus not only diverges from first principles, it is also profoundly dangerous, since it gives the Executive the go-ahead to sometimes wield the kind of unchecked, arbitrary power the Founders crafted our Constitution to eradicate,” Jackson wrote. “With deep disillusionment, I dissent.”

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on abortion could come as early as Tuesday or Thursday of this week. The ruling is highly expected to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 court decision stating that abortion must remain legal and free from excessive government restrictions.

Pro-choice advocates have pointed out that overturning Roe v. Wade will likely result in increased deaths and poverty for women forced into giving birth. The possible ruling will also negatively affect women and clinics in states where abortion remains legal.

Here are 13 abortion facts you should know leading up to the court’s decision.

1) Nine states have passed laws making abortion illegal six weeks into pregnancy. Many women don’t even realize that they’re pregnant at that point. These states include Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.

2) 21 other states ban abortion between 13 and 24 weeks.

3) 17 states have “trigger laws” that could immediately outlaw abortion if Roe v. Wade is overturned. The states include Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

4) If these states outlaw abortion, then women who live in these states will likely go to other states where abortion hasn’t been outlawed. This will cause the clinics to be overbooked with appointments for weeks or months out. This means that a woman may not even be able to access a legal abortion, even if she tries to book one within the time period legally allowed by her state.

5) Clinics in anti-abortion states often face frequent inspections and fines for infractions as an active way to make it harder for them to operate.

6) Abortion clinics and providers have been subject to terrorism for decades. That violence is expected to increase if Roe is overturned. More abortion clinics have closed than opened nationwide in the last decade. Fewer med students are learning how to provide abortions because they don’t want to risk their lives.

7) The short windows of time for legal abortion give abortion-seekers far less time to whip up the $1,000 or more needed to get an abortion or abortion meds, as well as the travel costs for going out of state to get an abortion. Some states also require people to wait 72 hours after getting an ultrasound to get an abortion and to pay for the burial of the fetus, adding extra time, costs, and indignity to the process.

8) Many undocumented women, lacking the government-issued ID needed to make an out-of-state journey, will stay trapped in their restrictive states.

9) The Texas law, which rewards bounty hunters to report any Texas resident who aids or abets an abortion, encourages people to stand outside of clinics and spy on abortion-seekers and their supporters.

10) Birth control sometimes fails, meaning that some abortion seekers tried to avoid pregnancy in the first place, but are portrayed as irresponsible child-killers by Republican legislators and other anti-abortion advocates.

11) Some women discover that their fetuses have birth defects that will eventually kill the child in the womb. When the window for these women to get an abortion closes, they’re forced to give birth to corpses.

12) If a 13-year-old or minor under the legal age of consent becomes pregnant through consensual sexual contact, they will be forced to have the child even though they’re not considered an adult by state or federal law. Statistically, this ensures that the minor will end up in poverty.

13) Statistically, the child, if given up for adoption, faces a higher likelihood of growing up in state care or in the foster system, increasing the likelihood of their developing mental illness or living in poverty.