Now, for a legal perspective on those new developments regarding President Trump's immigration

agenda, we turn to William Banks, Professor Emeritus of Law at Syracuse University.

Thank you for being with us. And as we reported, the Supreme Court today lifted restrictions

on immigration stops in the Los Angeles area, at least while this case plays out in the

appeals court. Lower court rulings found evidence

that the raids swept up people simply for looking Latino or for speaking Spanish, raising Fourth

Amendment concerns. How should we understand the court's ruling in light of that?

The most important thing to understand about what the Supreme Court has done today is that

it's only temporary. They pause the lower courts while a hearing on the merits can be held. So

whether the ICE immigration stops are based on a proven or unproven assertion of focusing on ethnicity or race,

has to be determined finally after there's been evidence submitted on a record.

So all the Supreme Court did today is that they're allowing the government

to go forward with their immigration enforcement methods as they proposed them, at least

while the litigation is pending. This case is by far, far from any means over. There'll be

arguments on the merits about the Fourth Amendment,

about the Due Process Clause, and perhaps even about the First Amendment.

Well, on that point, how do immigration stops based on race, language, or appearance,

square with the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure?

Justice Kavanaugh is the only justice to write a concurring opinion from among those in the

majority today. It was six to three. And Justice Kavanaugh said that his view was that the

potential for ethnicity or race to be a factor in the immigration enforcement

was one factor among many. And if it's one factor among many that the government used to

...