Your fact-checks will appear here
Individuals can mount constitutional challenges, including Fourth Amendment claims, against agency arrest practices.
ICE enforcement practices have generated multiple constitutional challenges, including First Amendment suits alleging retaliatory targeting of immigrant advocates and challenges tied to access-to-cour...
Barnes v. Felix is a 2025 U.S. Supreme Court decision that rejected the Fifth Circuit’s narrow “moment-of-threat” rule and reaffirmed that Fourth Amendment excessive-force claims must be judged by the...
When U.S. citizens are wrongfully detained by federal immigration authorities, immediate remedies focus on securing release—asserting citizenship, supplying documentation, and obtaining counsel—while ...
Federal courts since 2009 have repeatedly constrained ICE’s use of detainers, treating most detainers as non‑mandatory requests and requiring Fourth Amendment safeguards such as probable cause and not...
and the courts possess a suite of overlapping tools to that amount to de facto arrest targets: congressional committees can subpoena, hold hearings, threaten contempt and use the power of the purse, w...
on a street, the immediate, practical course is to remain calm and non‑confrontational, assert the right to remain silent, and clarify whether the encounter is consensual or an arrest—pedestrians gene...
Federal constitutional rules, DHS and ICE policy directives, and agency handbooks together constrain how ICE may enter homes—generally requiring a judicial (judge-signed) warrant to force entry absent...
When ICE agents enter a private home without a warrant signed by a judge, the legal landscape is disputed but not lawless: federal training materials and immigrant‑rights guidance emphasize that admin...