Hacker News Reader

Comment by JumpCrisscross | Hacker News Reader

> They are literally letting them target based on race

Not really. SCOTUS lifted a district court's stay.

Trump wanted that. SCOTUS gave in. The district court now goes back to figuring out what's going on, except with the stay lifted instead of in place. "Allow" is too permissive a term because nothing was sanctioned and eventual challenges based on racial profiling have not been precluded; that's why Reuters didn't use the term.

From a Reddit standard of discussion, "allow" works. If you have any knowledge of our legal system, it misrepresents the opinions.

View on HN

BBC: "Supreme Court lifts limits on LA immigration raids"

PBS: "Supreme Court ends restrictions on LA immigration stops set after agents swept up U.S. citizens"

Politico: "Supreme Court lifts restrictions on ‘roving’ ICE raids in Los Angeles"

WaPo: "Supreme Court lifts limits on immigration raids in the Los Angeles area"

And in practice:

ABC: "Immigrants in Southern California go on high alert after Supreme Court ruling

If you have any knowledge of what is happening on the ground, it fully represents the consequence of the opinions:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/08/us/politics/supreme-court...

All of those headlines are accurate. (Some, more to the point than this article's.) "Allows racial targeting" is not.

You are nitpicking. The Supreme Court is allowing racial targeting right now. It is happening, right now. People are being roughhandled, thrown to the ground, handcuffed right now. People are going missing from their families right now, for the "crime" of having non-white skin, speaking Spanish and working menial jobs.

The fact that they will make a decision a posteriori about it (in, what, several months? Maybe? There isn't any deadline after the Sept. 24th hearing) doesn't change the fact racial profiling is happening at this very hour because the Supreme Court took the action to go against a lower court that stopped it. You are splitting hairs and playing with words from the comfort of your comfortable armchair, free from any personal concern, with no skin in the game, because "ooooh, someone may misunderstand the Supreme Court's decision scope and breadth, we can't allow that to happen".

So they allowed it. And it will continue to happen. They could have stopped it but chose not to.

So no, it isn’t dishonest as this is materially the consequence of their decision. Hypothetical future challenges are not real.

> they allowed it

No, within the context of the Supreme Court they didn’t allow it any more than that one district court ruling stopped it. It’s this sort of misinterpretation of what lifting a stay really means for folks on the ground that poisons a lot of lay discussion.

The district court did stop it. The material reality is that yesterday the government could not implement this policy and tomorrow they can.

> district court did stop it

Do we have a source for behavior having changed on the ground?

My understanding is it hadn’t during the appeals process.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com