Your fact-checks will appear here
The application and interpretation of the Fourth Amendment in the context of administrative immigration warrants and civil immigration arrests.
Federal law does not create a general obligation for U.S. citizens to carry or show proof of citizenship in public, and ICE (a federal immigration agency) has statutory authority to question, detain o...
gives broad authority to arrest noncitizens without a traditional judge‑issued criminal warrant in many circumstances, and the agency routinely uses internal administrative warrants (Forms I-200 and I...
Federal law contains no express statutory authorization that says ICE agents may wear masks or use false names during arrests; instead, masking and certain deceptive tactics rest on agency policy, lon...
Judicial warrants are court-issued orders signed by a judge that authorize searches, arrests, or seizures and permit entry into private, nonpublic spaces; administrative ICE warrants are agency-issued...
has long treated administrative warrants as a limited exception to the in regulatory contexts, but it has repeatedly avoided a clear, controlling ruling on whether administrative arrest warrants satis...
The short answer: absent a valid exception, ’s jurisprudence has long required a judicially issued warrant to physically enter a private home to make an arrest, and an internal memo asserting that adm...
ICE agents have statutory authority to make warrantless arrests for immigration violations and, in limited circumstances, for certain criminal offenses—especially when the offense occurs in the office...
ICE administrative (or removal) warrants are internal agency documents signed by immigration officials rather than judges and authorize ICE to arrest a person believed removable, but they do not, by t...
Federal appellate precedent is fractured: a trio of 1980s appellate decisions extended administrative-warrant doctrine to immigration enforcement in some contexts, while more recent district and circu...
ICE builds arrest targets through a mix of records, field intelligence and on-the-ground identification, and then uses a mix of administrative paperwork, public arrests and sometimes deceitful tactics...
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) can demand proof of identity and citizenship in specific settings tied to its border and immigration enforcement roles — most clearly at ports of entry and during s...
Administrative ICE warrants are agency-issued documents—signed by DHS or ICE officials rather than judges—that authorize immigration officers to detain or remove an individual but, unlike judicial war...
Yes—federal law gives ICE officers broad authority to make arrests and, under Attorney General–prescribed regulations, to carry firearms while performing immigration-enforcement duties , but that auth...
detainers are administrative requests—commonly Form I‑247—that ask local jails to notify ICE of an inmate’s release and/or hold the person up to 48 extra hours so ICE can assume custody . Many localit...
Federal immigration officers may arrest people in public without a judge’s sign‑off, but the Constitution and federal guidance draw a bright line around private homes: absent consent or a recognized e...
The constitutional question turns on whether Renee Good was deprived of her Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure and excessive force when an ICE agent fired into her vehicle; the videos...
ICE does have legal powers to arrest people, and those powers can extend to someone who disobeys an officer’s lawful command if that disobedience amounts to a criminal offense—for example resisting, o...
’s authority to operate beyond the immediate border is not limited to the single clause 8 U.S.C. §1357(a); draws on a constellation of statutory authorities in Title 8 (the INA) and Title 19 () that p...
Federal law gives ICE statutory authority to arrest people without a judicial warrant in many circumstances, but the Fourth Amendment and court rulings limit when agents may enter private homes or non...
Federal law as represented in the sources does not point to a single, clear statutory bar narrowly labeled “ impersonation,” and courts have focused more on constitutional limits—principally the —than...