Thursday, February 12, 2026

Dear AI Overview: Is speaking Spanish used to justify searching for evidence that someone is in the United States illegally?

Yes, according to recent developments in 2025, speaking Spanish has been used by federal immigration authorities, specifically U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), to help justify stops and searches for evidence of illegal immigration status.

Key Details on the Use of Spanish as Justification:

2025 Supreme Court Ruling: In September 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court (in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo) allowed ICE to resume immigration stops in the Los Angeles area based on a combination of factors, which include speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent.

The Four-Part Test: The Supreme Court allowed agents to use a four-part criteria for "reasonable suspicion," which includes: (1) apparent race or ethnicity; (2) speaking Spanish or accented English; (3) presence at locations like job sites, car washes, or bus stops; and (4) the type of work a person does.

Legal Context: While a lower court had previously deemed this, among other factors, as unconstitutional racial profiling, the Supreme Court's 6-3 decision in September 2025 lifted that injunction, allowing these factors to be used to initiate questioning.

Implications: Critics, including immigration advocacy groups, argue that this ruling effectively allows federal agents to profile individuals based on their language, appearance, and work. Justice Sotomayor, in her dissent, warned that this "gives agents a green light to target people who look Latino, speak Spanish, or hold low-wage jobs".

Constitutional Protections:

Despite the 2025 ruling allowing these factors to form "reasonable suspicion" for a brief stop, the Fourth Amendment still requires that any search or prolonged detention be based on specific, articulable facts, not solely on a person's language or ethnicity. However, the 2025 decision has made it significantly easier for immigration officials to justify initiating such stops.


ScotusBlog: Noem v. Perdomo.