This week’s federal policy round-up tracks federal policy developments impacting our communities—from children’s health and worker protections to immigration rights and foreign aid.
From Justice to Injustice: SCOTUS Permits Race-Based ICE Stops
In a 6–3 party-line vote, the Supreme Court has allowed ICE to resume racially biased immigration enforcement in Los Angeles—permitting stops and questioning based on perceived Latino ethnicity. The temporary order was issued through the Court’s shadow docket, a fast-track process that bypasses full briefing and explanation.
The Federal Government admitted it would base ICE stops on four factors: apparent race or ethnicity, Spanish-language use or accent, location, and type of job. These criteria effectively target Latinos or those perceived to be Latino, while exempting others. Justice Brett Kavanaugh defended the policy in a concurring opinion, calling it “common sense” and downplaying the harm, despite the fact that millions of Latinos—citizens and undocumented alike—now face a presumption of suspicion rooted in race. By legitimizing racial profiling, the Court not only endangers Latino communities—it sets a precedent that threatens the civil rights of all Americans, weakening protections against discrimination and opening the door to unchecked surveillance and enforcement across communities
As the Supreme Court greenlights racial profiling in immigration enforcement, another federal court has stepped in to protect immigrant communities from abrupt legal rollbacks. On Friday, a federal judge blocked the administration’s attempt to end temporary legal protections for over 1.1 million people from Venezuela and Haitians. The ruling halts the termination of Temporary Protected Status and Humanitarian Parole designations, which have allowed individuals to live and work in the U.S. legally.
The judge criticized Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem for exceeding her authority, noting that presidential administrations have upheld these protections for over 35 years. This ruling brings immediate relief and stability to hundreds of thousands of families, affirming that immigrant communities deserve protection, dignity, and the right to plan their futures without fear of sudden displacement.
Caring for Our Children and Communities
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has released a 20-page “Make Our Children Healthy Again” strategy under the President’s broader initiative. While it raises valid concerns about children’s exposure to chemicals, ultra-processed foods, and chronic disease, it also promotes fringe claims and could undermine established science. The plan emphasizes research but postpones key decisions—like defining ultra-processed foods or revising dietary guidelines—until late 2025. Public health specialists caution that it questions the safety of routine vaccines, risking further erosion of confidence. Its message also conflicts with administration policies, pointing to chemical risks while loosening chemical rules and stressing nutrition while cutting food assistance, leaving inequities unaddressed.
As federal agencies shape long-term strategies for public health, courts continue to play a critical role in checking executive actions that could restrict access to essential services. In a recent decision, a federal trial court in Rhode Island issued a ruling that blocks a Trump-era policy that would have cut off programs like Head Start and health clinics from certain immigrant communities. The court sided with 20 states and DC, which argued that the Federal Government bypassed required rulemaking and public notice when imposing new conditions on funding. The proposed changes would have reclassified certain community services as federal public benefits and restricted eligibility based on individuals’ or their parents’ immigration status. The judge found the rollout was “rushed” and would have caused disproportionate harm—both to those relying on these services and to those tasked with enforcing eligibility rules. While the ruling preserves access to these programs for now, the Federal Government retains the right to appeal the decision, which could prolong uncertainty for impacted communities.
Economic Justice for Workers and Small Business Owners
As federal courts continue to weigh in on executive actions, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case this November that could determine the legality of President Trump’s emergency tariffs—tariffs that remain in effect despite being ruled unlawful by lower courts. The case centers on whether Trump had the legal authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs on imports from nearly all foreign countries. Tariffs are essentially a tax on U.S. consumers. Lower courts—the U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit—ruled that IEEPA does not grant the president power to levy tariffs, which is a constitutional authority reserved for Congress.
The Trump administration, represented by the Department of Justice, is appealing those rulings in an effort to preserve the tariffs. On the opposing side are small businesses, including V.O.S. Selections and Terry Precision Cycling, along with a coalition of Democratic-led states, who argue that the tariffs are both unlawful and economically harmful, having raised costs and disrupted supply chains. The Supreme Court’s decision will not only determine the future of these tariffs—it will also set a precedent for how far presidential emergency powers can reach in shaping trade policy and economic conditions nationwide.
In another shift away from worker and consumer protections, the administration has officially abandoned a rule that would have banned most noncompete agreements nationwide—a major shift with wide-reaching implications for workers’ rights. The rule, originally introduced by the previous administration and struck down in court earlier this year, aimed to protect workers from contracts that limit their ability to change jobs, start businesses, or negotiate better wages. Rather than defending the ban, the Federal Trade Commission announced it will now pursue enforcement on a case-by-case basis. This decision preserves the broad use of noncompete agreements, particularly in lower-wage and service sectors, where workers are often most vulnerable to exploitation. It strengthens the hand of large employers while weakening job mobility and bargaining power for millions of workers.
The rollback is part of a broader trend of dismantling consumer protections. For example, the administration also withdrew proposed rules that would have required airlines to compensate passengers for cancellations and delays within the airline’s control. Together, these moves shift costs and risks away from corporations and onto individuals—eroding critical safeguards for both workers and consumers.
Back-Door Veto: Executive Overreach Faces Supreme Court Scrutiny
The U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily paused a lower court order requiring the Trump administration to release $4 billion in foreign aid already approved by Congress. The administration is using a tactic known as a pocket rescission, submitting its cancellation request so late in the fiscal year that Congress cannot respond within the required review period. If this legally dubious maneuver is ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court, it will enable the executive branch to withhold funds despite congressional appropriation, effectively giving the President a back-door line-item veto. The case raises sharp separation-of-powers concerns, as it undermines Congress’s constitutional authority over federal spending.