What has ice done that is illegal?
Executive summary
ICE has been accused in multiple recent reports and legal actions of crossing legal lines — from allegedly using excessive force in operations that resulted in at least one fatal shooting to adopting policies that suppress recording of agents and allegedly accessing private data on activists — while the agency and DHS frame many of its actions as lawful arrests of dangerous criminal noncitizens [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Reporting shows a split: federal and local officials, civil-rights lawyers and city governments say some ICE tactics may be unlawful, while DHS/ICE press releases portray ramped-up arrests of people with serious criminal convictions as legitimate enforcement [6] [7] [5].
1. Fatal use of force and questions of lawfulness
A high-profile incident in Minneapolis in January 2026 in which an ICE officer shot and killed Renée Nicole Good has become central to claims that ICE used unlawful lethal force; federal officials called the shooting self-defense while the city’s mayor described it as “reckless” and unnecessary, and that divergence has fueled legal and public scrutiny [1].
2. Allegations of excessive force and militarized campaigns
Local officials and news outlets documented videos of aggressive, heavily armed federal operations in Minneapolis and Chicago, and Chicago joined Illinois’s attorney general in a federal lawsuit alleging unlawful actions, abusive enforcement tactics, and rights violations—including warrantless detentions and a militarized apartment raid that detained residents and children—which the city frames as illegal behavior by federal immigration agents [2] [6].
3. Suppression of bystanders and recording: court pushback
ICE agents in Minnesota have told observers that recording operations is “illegal,” detained people for filming, and DHS messaging called posting videos “doxing,” yet a federal judge in California recently found DHS adopted a policy that suppresses First Amendment reporting and observation activities, and appellate precedent supports a public right to record law enforcement — all suggesting parts of DHS/ICE practice may run afoul of constitutional protections [3].
4. Surveillance, data access, and potential state-law violations
State reporting in Minnesota describes ICE agents accessing private data to track and intimidate activists, with privacy advocates saying such access can violate state law; those allegations, if proven, would place ICE conduct outside lawful investigative bounds and into potential legal violation of state privacy statutes [4].
5. Covert programs and “undeclared activities” described by leaks
Investigative reporting based on leaked documents alleges ICE ran covert programs to enlist local police and develop informants among immigrants, label operations like “Abracadabra” and “Benchwarmer,” and exploit detainees and community networks for intelligence — activities characterized by the reporting as undeclared and suggestive of operations that could exceed statutory or policy limits [8].
6. ICE’s legal defense: mass arrests of convicted offenders
DHS and ICE emphasize a hiring surge and a dramatic increase in enforcement aimed at removing the “worst of the worst,” repeatedly publicizing arrests of people convicted of child sexual abuse, trafficking, murder and other violent crimes as lawful removals under immigration law — a narrative DHS uses to justify expanded operations [5] [9] [10] [11].
7. What’s proven, what’s alleged, and reporting limits
Multiple reputable outlets, local governments and court findings have documented instances and policies that courts or advocates say are unconstitutional or may violate state law [3] [6] [4], yet the publicly available sources do not supply final court rulings or comprehensive DOJ findings overturning all challenged practices; therefore some claims remain allegations under litigation or investigation while ICE continues to assert legality and public‑safety justification [1] [7].