The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that large-scale immigration sweeps in Los Angeles can continue, lifting a lower court order that had restricted how agents could conduct stops.

In a 6-3 decision issued Monday, the justices said federal agents may stop and question individuals without “reasonable suspicion” while a broader legal challenge over the raids moves through the courts, BBC reports. The ruling allows enforcement officers to consider factors such as race, language, or type of employment when determining whom to stop.

Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, argued that the earlier restraining order issued in Los Angeles went too far in limiting the work of immigration agents. “To be clear, apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion,” he declared. “However, it can be a ‘relevant factor’ when considered along with other salient factors.”

The three liberal justices strongly dissented. Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned that the decision put constitutional rights in jeopardy. “Countless people in the Los Angeles area have been grabbed, thrown to the ground, and handcuffed simply because of their looks, their accents, and the fact they make a living by doing manual labour,” she wrote. “Today, the Court needlessly subjects countless more to these exact same indignities.”

California leaders also criticized the decision. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said on X, “Today’s ruling is not only dangerous –  it’s un-American and threatens the fabric of personal freedom in the United States of America.” Governor Gavin Newsom added that “Trump's private police force now has a green light to come after your family.”

The case stems from a temporary restraining order issued by U.S. District Judge Maame E. Frimpong. She had ruled that there was evidence showing the raids violated the Constitution, citing instances where people were stopped simply for speaking Spanish or being present at places like bus stops or work sites.

Advocacy groups involved in the lawsuit said they were vehemently against the high court’s decision. Armando Gudino, a plaintiff and immigrant rights advocate, argued the ruling had “legalised racism.”