What laws are ice protesters concerned are being broken by agents and dhs?

1. Fourth Amendment and warrantless entries: protesters point to suspicionless stops and administrative‑warrant arrests

A core complaint is that ICE and CBP have conducted stops, arrests, and home entries without judicial warrants or probable cause, relying instead on administrative warrants or suspicionless stops; legal experts and reporting note that past practice generally avoided forcible home entry on administrative warrants and that lower courts have sometimes found such entries unconstitutional, raising Fourth Amendment concerns that underpin ACLU litigation and public criticism ^{[1] [3]}. Minneapolis and other local attorneys argue that agents’ practice of using administrative authority to arrest people in residences and public spaces amounts to unlawful seizures, a contention now being pressed in court ^{[3] [5]}.

2. Excessive force and Section 242 (federal criminal liability): protesters say agents’ violence may be criminal

Videos and multiple incidents that activists and civil‑liberties groups have publicized have prompted questions about excessive or deadly force by federal immigration officers; commentators and public‑interest lawyers say the facts in several cases appear to implicate Section 242 (the statute criminalizing willful deprivation of constitutional rights under color of law) and call for DOJ action even while the Department of Justice has been criticized for not pursuing criminal charges so far ^{[2] [6]}. The killing of Renee Good and other use‑of‑force episodes galvanized protests and lawsuits alleging that federal force exceeded constitutional limits and that DOJ’s “silence” emboldens further problematic conduct ^{[2] [4]}.

3. First Amendment retaliation and surveillance of dissenters: protesters fear targeting and intimidation

Organizers and civil‑rights groups warn that DHS and ICE are using investigative and data capabilities to track, intimidate, or even label anti‑ICE protesters as threats, a dynamic the Brennan Center and others describe as the use of law‑enforcement tools to chill speech and protest; court filings and reporting allege that surveillance and attempts to unmask or deter observers cross into retaliation and unlawful investigation of protected political activity ^{[7] [8]}. DHS officials, by contrast, emphasize officer safety and contend that identifying agents publicly can endanger families, while some federal documents suggest an intention to monitor so‑called ringleaders ^{[9] [7]}.

4. Racial profiling and civil‑rights class claims: systemic constitutional claims under equal protection and due process

Plaintiffs in mounting class‑action suits allege widespread racial profiling, arbitrary detentions and discriminatory targeting that violate constitutional equal‑protection and due‑process norms; the ACLU’s complaints and local government filings assert that citizens and residents have been detained, handcuffed, and held without adequate reason, forming the basis for systemic civil‑rights litigation ^{[3] [5]}. These complaints are presented alongside accounts of operations in sensitive sites—schools, medical facilities, places of worship—that activists say flout longstanding practice and legal protections ^{[5] [1]}.

5. Federalism, the Tenth Amendment, and administrative law: cities say the deployments exceed federal statutory authority

Local officials in Minnesota have framed the large DHS surge as a federal overreach that impinges on state and municipal authority, alleging violations of the Tenth Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act and seeking injunctions to halt the surge and specific tactics; Minneapolis and state lawsuits explicitly ask courts to curb deployments and to end behaviors they call unlawful under federal administrative law ^[5]. DHS and federal spokespeople defend the operations as lawful enforcement of immigration statutes, and at least one federal judge has issued temporary rulings allowing certain crowd‑control actions while litigation proceeds ^{[4] [9]}.

6. Documentation, training gaps, and remedies: why protesters press for oversight not just protest

Reporting by oversight bodies and journalists highlights gaps in DHS documentation, use‑of‑force reporting, and training that activists cite as aggravating factors—arguing that poor records and weak internal accountability allow unlawful conduct to persist and frustrate meaningful remedies; Congress and advocates are pushing statutory fixes including mandatory use‑of‑force standards and enhanced oversight while civil suits and DOJ inquiries aim to test claims in court ^{[10] [11]}. Where the sources do not definitively adjudicate individual incidents, they show ongoing litigation, congressional proposals, and competing claims from DHS about lawfulness ^{[2] [11]}.