Fourth Amendment — Online Journal — Columbia Undergraduate Law Review

Reopening the Door to Racial Profiling: The Fourth Amendment After Noem

In September 2025, Los Angeles residents woke to the sound of sirens and helicopters as federal agents swept through car washes, construction sites, and local markets. The operation, called “Operation At Large,” led to the arrest of hundreds of Latino workers within hours. That same morning, the Supreme Court quietly reinstated the raids on its emergency docket in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo (2025). The decision allowed immigration authorities to resume detentions even as evidence of racial profiling mounted. Justice Kavanaugh’s opinion treats race, language, and occupation as “relevant factors” when determining reasonable suspicion, a line of reasoning that belongs to the racial profiling the Court rejected fifty years ago in United States v. Brignoni-Ponce (1975). At the same time, the majority relies on Los Angeles v. Lyons (1983) to limit who can bring challenges against enforcement programs, shutting out the very communities that face repeated violations. Together, these moves weaken both the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and the ability to seek relief through the courts.

Avani SundaresanDecember 7, 2025Civil rights, immigration enforcement, Fourth Amendment, racial profiling

Guilty Until Proven Innocent: A New American Legal Standard

“Say her name!” Many are familiar with Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene’s outburst at former President Biden’s 2024 State of the Union. Few are familiar with the details behind this exclamation. Laken Riley was a twenty-two-year-old nursing student at Augusta University College of Nursing when she was killed by Jose Antonio Ibarra on February 24th, 2022. Ibarra, an undocumented immigrant, was found guilty of Riley’s murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole. In the short while after her death, Laken Riley’s name became a rallying cry for drastic immigration reforms from conservative Congress members and President Donald Trump, who, at the time, was campaigning for his re-election. These reforms came to fruition when President Trump signed the Laken Riley Act into law on January 29th, 2025–his first piece of legislation since his inauguration on January 20th. The act requires the mandatory detention of undocumented immigrants who are accused or arrested of committing a crime of burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting without the possibility of bail or provision for release even if charges are dropped. [1] It also “authorizes states to sue the federal government for decisions or alleged failures related to immigration enforcement,” endowing standing for states to challenge federal policy and enforcement of immigration policy within their borders. [2] While there is precedent to support strong federal oversight of immigration policy, the Laken Riley Act and the likely decision of the U.S. Supreme Court to rule in its favor, as they did in Trump v. Hawaii (2018), presents an unconstitutional foundation for the removal of due process and equal protection vested in the United States Constitution.

The FBI’s Searches of Black Lives Matter Activists: A Budding Fourth Amendment Issue

Following the murder of George Floyd in 2020, many activists initiated protests of all forms to voice their discontent with the American government. Social media emerged as one prominent medium for activists to advertise their beliefs and organize protests—predominantly under the umbrella of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. However, law enforcement, especially the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), has utilized the very social media platforms that BLM activists make use of in an effort to connect them to terrorist activity.

Raymond SterlingJanuary 19, 2022media, Fourth Amendment, Black Lives Matter, activism, privacy

The Fourth Amendment and Privacy Risks in the Digital Age

As individuals progressively incorporate digital devices into their daily lives, many aspects of law need to be adjusted to better reflect the interests of those individuals. One particularly glaring blind spot in the law is the collection of internet users’ data. Every occurrence in cyberspace is recorded, and anything recorded is accessible. It is thus critical for the Supreme Court to revise and update their interpretation of the Fourth Amendment to better address the current conditions of online privacy.

Michelle TangDecember 31, 2020Fourth Amendment, online privacy, cybercrime