The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is seeking permission from the U.S. Supreme Court to allow its agents to detain and question individuals who speak Spanish or English with an accent, as part of immigration enforcement efforts. The government argues in its request that language can be a valid factor—among others—in suspecting someone of being undocumented in the country.
This appeal by the DHS aims to overturn a federal order that prohibits detaining individuals based solely on language, racial or ethnic appearance, employment type, or location. In their Application to Stay, the DHS and the Department of Justice (DOJ) request the Supreme Court lift this restriction immediately, claiming it unduly hampers immigration control activities.
The government contends that in areas with high numbers of undocumented individuals from countries like Mexico, El Salvador, and Guatemala—where "many speak only Spanish"—language can serve as a legitimate factor in assessing immigration status. They argue that agents often need to question individuals on-site to confirm or dispel suspicions, and language, combined with other factors—such as job type or location—can justify such actions.
They cite past judicial precedents where a group "speaking only in Spanish" was deemed relevant in broader evaluations. They clarify, "No one thinks speaking Spanish... always generates reasonable suspicion," but insist that in many situations, this factor, alone or in combination, may increase the likelihood of someone being in the country illegally.
Opposition from Plaintiffs
The plaintiffs—comprising five workers and four community organizations—strongly oppose the notion that language is a reliable indicator of immigration status. They argue that this practice would unjustly target millions of citizens and legal residents whose first language is Spanish or who speak English with an accent.
The district court supported this argument, concluding that the four factors listed by the government merely describe a "broad profile" that fails to meet the constitutional standard of reasonable suspicion.
The Stakes for Spanish Speakers
In states like California, home to more than 10 million Spanish speakers and where the lawsuit was filed, allowing language to trigger detentions and interrogations could expose entire communities to indiscriminate enforcement actions. This would affect both undocumented immigrants and legal residents, creating a climate of fear that might deter many from reporting crimes or cooperating with authorities. Florida would also face significant impacts.
A ruling in favor of the government could set a national precedent that normalizes roving checks, workplace interrogations, and public stops based on linguistic observations.
“Let Silence Not Be Our Story”
Pedro Vásquez Perdomo, one of the plaintiffs, was detained on June 18 in Pasadena while waiting for work at a bus stop. According to his account, unmarked vehicles arrived, and masked men arrested him "as if he were a criminal." He was taken to the basement of the federal building B-18 in Los Angeles, where he was held with 52 others without proper facilities.
"Let silence not be our story," he declared in statements to EFE, urging others affected to report and document any abuse. The ACLU of Southern California supports this call and reminds that the current court order remains in effect, meaning any questioning or detention based solely on language, accent, or appearance should be reported.
Possible Outcomes
What lies ahead? The Supreme Court could:
- Grant the suspension, allowing agents to resume questioning based on language and other factors while litigation continues.
- Deny the request, maintaining current protections.
- Provide a short administrative suspension while reviewing the case in detail.
What's certain is that the decision will have an immediate impact on the daily lives of millions who use Spanish as their primary or common language in the United States.
Key Questions on DHS Language-Based Detentions
Why is the DHS seeking to detain individuals based on language?
The DHS argues that language can be a factor, among others, in assessing whether someone is undocumented, especially in areas with high numbers of immigrants from Spanish-speaking countries.
What are the arguments against the DHS's request?
Opponents claim that using language as a basis for detention could unjustly target millions of citizens and legal residents, fostering a climate of fear and potentially violating constitutional rights.
What could be the consequences if the Supreme Court sides with the DHS?
A decision in favor of the DHS could set a national precedent, leading to widespread language-based immigration checks, and significantly impacting Spanish-speaking communities across the United States.