Just a little over a week ago, immigration agents broke down the door of a Minnesota home, held the family inside at gunpoint, and forced a handcuffed ChongLy Thao out into the freezing cold in only his underwear. Everything about that now-infamous raid seemed like an escalation: Thao is a U.S. citizen; he has no criminal record; and most shocking of all, the agents had no judicial warrant to enter his home.
We have since learned that the warrantless entry into Thao’s home was not a rogue deviation from DHS policy, but may actually be its new standard protocol.
And of course, we have all witnessed what has come to be known as “Kavanaugh stops”—the intrusive, sometimes violent, interactions between agents and civilians that far too often are based not on evidence but on skin color, and therefore sweep up people who have every right to be present in the United States, free from government interference.
Those stops are policy, not deviation. The Supreme Court–in particular, Justice Kavanaugh–has greenlit DHS’ racial profiling tactics and dismissed the terror, humiliation, and trauma of these stops as acceptable “brief encounter[s].”
But we didn’t get here overnight. For decades, states have systematically eroded Fourth Amendment protections through court decisions and legislation. From expanded stop-and-frisk policies to broadened definitions of probable cause, courts and legislatures have gradually, but consistently, weakened constitutional safeguards against unreasonable searches.
Today’s newsletter explores how this previous erosion of Fourth Amendment protections has now opened the door for modern DHS policies–and why these attacks on those rights make us all less safe and less free.
Leaked ICE Memo Asserts Right To Warrantless House Searches
A whistleblower leaked a 2025 ICE memo proposing that agents could enter homes using administrative warrants, effectively eliminating the last meaningful barrier against arbitrary government intrusion. This approach creates an even more dangerous landscape, where immigration agents can operate with fewer guardrails than criminal law enforcement—a scenario that endangers not just the rights of immigrants, but those of every person living in the U.S., regardless of status.
A critical distinction exists between an administrative warrant and a judicial warrant: a warrant signed by a judge requires probable cause verified by an independent magistrate, while an administrative warrant merely has to be signed by an immigration official like an immigration judge or an immigration officer. Further, administrative warrants are limited in scope and allow immigration officers to make arrests or seizures but can not even be used to conduct searches.
This approach effectively removes crucial judicial oversight, transforming administrative warrants into a tool for potential home invasions. The memo represents more than an immigration issue—it’s a fundamental threat to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
It is hard to overstate the dangers of allowing agents to enter homes without judicial oversight. Even in criminal law–with its strict warrant requirements and the threat that unlawfully obtained evidence could be suppressed—mistakes, violations, and abuses frequently happen, with destructive and sometimes deadly consequences. ICE’s proposal would only amplify those risks.
States Have Paved the Way for This Newest Encroachment on Fourth Amendment Rights
While people watch the federal government and the U.S. Supreme Court dismantle precedent and constitutional safeguards, state courts and municipalities have been busy assisting in and foreshadowing the demolition.
State Courts Have Routinely Eroded the Fourth Amendment’s Protections against Unlawful Entry into One’s Home
In 2002, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that it was legally permissible for a police officer to chase you into your home if the officer wants to arrest you for a misdemeanor. One justice dissented, warning that “Our Bill of Rights contains a mere ten ideas. Any time we chip away at one of those ten we had better have a good reason.”
Wisconsin similarly held in 2016 that police can enter your home without a warrant if they are in “hot pursuit”—not of someone dangerous, but of a suspected traffic violator.
The U.S. Supreme Court did decide to step in and somewhat curtail this encroachment. In Lange v. California, the Court held that it is not always okay for police to barge into your house to arrest you for a misdemeanor. Trial courts will need to make those decisions on a case-by-case basis…
Even When Courts Find That a Violation Has Occurred, Federal and State Laws Make it Difficult to Find Any Recourse
The Iowa Supreme Court recently decided that a person whose Fourth Amendment rights were clearly violated by the government can no longer sue the government to seek damages.
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals described the Constitution’s protection against unreasonable arrests as “hazy,” after an Arkansas mother sued a police officer for threatening her with a Taser and her sons with his gun drawn.
When faced with the question of qualified immunity, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued one of the more absurd decisions on the matter. In City of Fresno v. Jessup, the court held that it was unclear whether a police officer’s theft of $225,000 from a home during the execution of a warrant for illegal gambling violated the Fourth Amendment. According to the court, the officers “did not have clear notice that [theft] violated the Fourth Amendment.”
All This While Counties and Cities Pay Millions of Dollars to Shred the Fourth Amendment into Pieces
In 2016, Bloomberg Businessweek reported that the City of Baltimore was operating a secret aerial surveillance program. Lawsuits revealed that the city was collecting about 12 hours of coverage of 90 percent of the city each day. Ultimately, a federal court ruled that Baltimore’s warrantless surveillance of its residents and visitors was unconstitutional.
Last year, the city of Oakland voted to spend $2,5 million on Flock surveillance. Flock, which uses cameras to surveil license plates, has come under fire repeatedly for its invasiveness and breadth. A Texas sheriff deputy’s search for a woman who had an abortion and traveled out of state illustrated how the camera system could be used by anyone who has access to it to track someone down across multiple state lines.
The NYPD just renewed its deal with ShotSpotter for three more years at the cost of $21.8 million. ShotSpotter’s gunshot identification technology is increasingly recognized as ineffective, but the alerts give police reason to investigate the people who live in the neighborhoods the sensors are placed in—usually ones with large populations of Black and Brown people.
New Orleans has the honor of becoming the first (known) city in the U.S. with a facial recognition system. Project NOLA, which a former police officer launched in 2009, created a “clearinghouse” for over 5000 cameras around the city. It added live facial recognition in 2022, and operated for three years until a Washington Post report revealed its existence and reported that its use violated a local ordinance.
Everyday People Are Bravely Standing Up Against ICE’s Unconstitutional Actions
Minneapolis community members are actively resisting and protesting against ICE. They have been using various tactics, including whistles and protests, to disrupt and monitor ICE operations. The murders of Renee Good and Alex Pretti have only galvanized their resolve, with residents taking to the streets to stand against ICE’s attempts to terrorize and abduct their neighbors, refusing to back down in the face of intimidation and threats to their privacy.
Mainers are following in Minnesotans’ footsteps as ICE storms their small towns and cities. Business owners and community members have taken a defiant stance against ICE’s aggressive actions, mobilizing to shield vulnerable workers from the agency’s predatory tactics and keep watch over local schools. Even though an ICE officer threatened a Mainer by stating that she was now in a domestic terrorist database, residents are still filming and documenting interactions with ICE agents, and shining a light on the agency’s abuses and refusing to let them operate with impunity.