Your fact-checks will appear here
Judicial decisions finding that acting on warrantless detainers violated the Fourth Amendment.
“detainers” are administrative requests from a federal immigration agency asking a jail to hold someone for transfer to ICE; they are not judicial warrants and carry no standalone legal authority to a...
Federal courts, state officials, civil-rights groups and watchdogs have cataloged a pattern of tied to recent —allegations range from warrantless home entries that courts have found unlawful to repeat...
The question “ICE violate what constitution?” is shorthand for asking which constitutional protections ICE’s tactics have been accused of breaching; reporting and litigation point primarily to alleged...
Federal law, congressional oversight, internal watchdogs, and the federal courts together form the legal architecture that is supposed to check ), but each pillar has shown serious limits in practice:...
Yes—lawful immigrants and U.S. citizens wrongfully held by ICE had recognized legal avenues to sue for wrongful detention in 2024, including constitutional claims and suits under the Federal Tort Clai...
Federal trial courts have credited a mixture of testimonial and documentary record evidence showing Immigration and Customs Enforcement targeted people in Los Angeles based on race, language, place an...
Federal judges across multiple cases have found that actions by President Trump or his administration violated constitutional provisions — most frequently the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments a...
Federal courts have not spoken with one voice about whether may rely on agency-issued “administrative” warrants to enter private homes; several district judges have treated forced home entry without a...
When forcibly enters a private home without a judicial warrant, have repeatedly treated those entries as potential violations and granted a mix of remedies: declaratory rulings that the entry was unco...
Civil liberties advocates, state officials and local leaders say recent DHS/ICE operations in places like Minnesota appear to violate multiple constitutional and statutory limits — chiefly the Fourth ...
a city police department can legally refuse civil detainer requests in many circumstances: detainers are voluntary administrative requests (not judicial warrants), several court rulings and a nationwi...
Recent litigation has thrust ICE’s internal directive allowing Form I-205 “administrative” warrants and expanded warrantless home-entry authority into federal courtrooms: advocates have filed multiple...
Federal courts—primarily lower district and appellate courts—have carved out limits on immigration agents’ use of deceptive entry tactics, finding warrantless forcible entries and misleading “knock-an...
Federal courts have repeatedly found key aspects of ICE’s detainer regime unconstitutional, concluding that detainers issued without a neutral probable‑cause determination and often based on error‑rid...
Since 2010 federal courts have steadily constrained ICE detainers by treating detainer-based holds as seizures implicating the Fourth Amendment, requiring probable cause and neutral review, and holdin...
To prove a wrongful arrest by ICE in federal court, plaintiffs typically must assemble documentary proof showing lack of probable cause or absence of lawful warrant authority, exhaust administrative r...
Yes — federal immigration officers can arrest people who interfere with their operations, but who they can lawfully detain, under what authority, and whether those arrests withstand constitutional scr...