>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
McLaughlin didn’t let that lie go unchallenged.
“The @NYTimes continues to humiliate itself and showcase its incompetence,” McLaughlin wrote on X. “’Indiscriminate stops’ is wildly inaccurate. The Supreme Court simply applied longstanding precedent regarding what qualifies as ‘reasonable suspicion’ under the Fourth Amendment.”
And then she delivered the knockout line:
“What makes someone a target of ICE is if they are illegally in the U.S. DHS enforces federal immigration law without fear, favor, or prejudice.”
The message was crystal clear: enforcing the law isn’t a crime—no matter how badly the media wants people to believe it is.
The Times article, written by Adam Liptak, pushed the idea that the Supreme Court ruling would somehow open the door to racial profiling.
The piece highlighted Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s warning that Latinos working as laborers were now “fair game to be seized at any time, taken away from work and held until they provide proof of their legal status to the agents’ satisfaction.”
That kind of language was clearly designed to stir outrage—but it completely ignored what the ruling actually said.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing separately, made it clear that the lower court had gone too far when it tried to restrict how ICE could conduct stops. The Supreme Court simply affirmed that officers can consider common-sense factors—like location and occupation—when they have reasonable suspicion someone is in the country illegally.
That’s not racial profiling. That’s basic law enforcement.
The entire case started when Judge Maame E. Frimpong, appointed by President Biden, ordered ICE agents to avoid considering things like ethnicity, language, or job type when making arrests.
The Supreme Court rejected that nonsense in a 6-3 ruling, siding with law and order over activist judges trying to rewrite immigration policy from the bench.
The Times tried to spin this as some civil rights crisis. It wasn’t. It was a straightforward case about enforcing immigration law.
McLaughlin’s response showed exactly how to deal with dishonest reporting: hit back with the facts and refuse to let them control the story.
The Constitution didn’t stop ICE from doing its job. The media just doesn’t want you to know that.
