For decades, the "sanctity of the home" and the protection against "unreasonable searches and seizures" under the Fourth Amendment were the bedrock of American civil liberties. However, in late 2025 and early 2026, a series of legal shifts have fundamentally altered how federal agents interact with the public. Most notable among these is the rise of what legal scholars now call the "Kavanaugh Stop."
What is a "Kavanaugh Stop"?
The term originated following the Supreme Court’s September 2025 decision in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo. In that case, the Court lifted a lower court’s injunction that had prohibited ICE agents from using a person's "apparent race or ethnicity" as a basis for investigative stops.
In his concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh argued that while ethnicity alone cannot justify a stop, it can be considered a "relevant factor" when combined with other circumstances—such as being in a location where undocumented immigrants are known to gather or working in certain manual labor industries.
The Legal Reality: "Reasonable Suspicion"
From a scholarly perspective, the "Kavanaugh Stop" is an expansion of the "Totality of the Circumstances" test. Under the Fourth Amendment, law enforcement needs "reasonable suspicion" to briefly detain someone for questioning.
Historical Context: In 1975 (United States v. Brignoni-Ponce), the Court ruled that "Mexican appearance" could not be the sole reason for a stop.
The 2026 Shift: The current interpretation allows agents to stack "proxies" for race—such as speaking Spanish, wearing certain clothing, or being at a car wash or construction site—to reach that threshold of suspicion.
For the "man on the street," this means that activities as mundane as waiting for a bus or speaking a second language in public can now legally contribute to a federal agent’s decision to detain you.
Why This Matters in Pennsylvania
While much of the national news focuses on the border, Pennsylvania is increasingly a "theatre of operations" for federal enforcement. Major transit hubs and agricultural regions in the Commonwealth have seen a surge in "roving patrols." Because federal law allows certain expanded powers within 100 miles of any "border" (which includes the entire coastline and major international airports), almost all of Pennsylvania falls within this high-scrutiny zone.
"Know Your Rights" Quick Reference Sheet
Keep this or take a photo of it on your phone. These rights apply to everyone in the U.S., regardless of immigration status.
1. The Right to Remain Silent
You do not have to answer any questions about where you were born, whether you are a U.S. citizen, or how you entered the country.
What to say: "I am exercising my right to remain silent and will not answer questions without an attorney."
2. The Right to Refuse Entry
If an agent comes to your home, do not open the door. * The "Warrant" Rule: Ask the agent to slide the warrant under the door or hold it to a window.
Judicial vs. Administrative: A valid Judicial Warrant is signed by a judge/court. An Administrative Warrant (often labeled "Form I-200" or "I-205") is signed by an ICE official and does not give them the right to enter your home without your consent.
3. Your Rights in a Vehicle
If you are pulled over, you must show your driver’s license, registration, and proof of insurance. However, you are not required to answer questions about your immigration status or the status of your passengers.
4. Do Not Sign Anything
Do not sign any documents (such as a "Voluntary Departure" form) without speaking to a lawyer first. Signing these documents can result in you giving up your right to a hearing before a judge.
5. Document the Encounter
If it is safe to do so, record the interaction on your phone. Ask for the agent’s name and badge number. In Pennsylvania, you have a First Amendment right to record law enforcement in public spaces.
If you or a loved one has been subjected to an unlawful stop or detention, would you like me to help you draft a formal request for the officer's body cam footage or the official incident report?
About the Author
Gregory T. Moro is a seasoned litigator with over three decades of experience advocating for clients in both civil and criminal matters. A founding partner of Moro & Moro, Attorneys at Law, based in Pennsylvania, Mr. Moro has built a reputation for courtroom excellence, particularly in complex appellate practice and high-stakes litigation.
Mr. Moro’s legal acumen is highlighted by his admission to the Supreme Court of the United States, as well as the U.S. Federal Court for the Third Circuit (Middle District) and the courts of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. His appellate work has established significant legal precedents in Pennsylvania, including successful arguments in cases such as Commonwealth v. Crossley and Commonwealth v. Stone, which reinforced constitutional protections and procedural rights.
He earned his Juris Doctor from the University of Dayton School of Law and graduated cum laude from the University of Scranton. Mr. Moro is an active member of the National Association of Defense Lawyers and the Pennsylvania Association of Defense Lawyers.
NOTHING IN THIS OR ANY OTHER BLOG POST CONSTITUTES LEGAL ADVICE OR FORMS AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FIRM AND THE READER. INFORMATION ORIGINATING FROM THIS WEBSITE IS INTENDED FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY.
Comments