The Fourth Amendment Rules ICE Must Follow—And What Happens When They Don’t

Last updated 16 hours ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent Jonathan Ross shot Renée Good three times through her windshield in south Minneapolis on January 7, 2026. She was a 37-year-old mother of three, sitting in her Honda Pilot. Video shows she steered away from Ross and appeared to be driving in the correct direction on a one-way street. Ross fired in under one second, keeping his phone in his left hand while drawing his weapon with his right.

Seventeen days later, Alex Pretti—a 37-year-old ICU nurse at the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center—was filming federal agents during another operation. Agents pepper-sprayed him, pinned him to the ground, and fired ten shots in five seconds. He was holding his phone in one hand and his glasses in the other. He had a legally owned firearm for which he held a valid permit, but witnesses testified he never brandished it. Agents discovered the weapon only after he was already subdued.

Both were American citizens. Both shootings happened during Operation Metro Surge, which deployed over 3,000 federal agents to Minnesota starting in December 2025—the largest immigration operation in American history.

Both deaths exposed something more troubling than the shootings themselves: ICE systematically broke constitutional rules protecting people from unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment protections that govern when law enforcement can enter your home, conduct searches, and use force weren’t bent in Minneapolis. They appear to have been abandoned entirely.

Fourth Amendment Protections and Judicial Warrant Requirements

The Fourth Amendment contains 54 words: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

For your home specifically, the Supreme Court has been unusually protective. In Payton v. New York, the Court held that police cannot enter a home without a judge’s permission to arrest someone—even for a felony—without first getting a warrant signed by a judge.

This applies to ICE. Immigration agents have broad authority to question people they suspect of being in the country illegally, but that authority doesn’t extend to forcing their way into homes. Any forced entry requires either a judicial warrant—signed by an independent judge based on probable cause—or what courts call emergency situations where waiting for a judge’s permission would be dangerous or impractical.

Courts have defined emergency exceptions to include hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect, preventing imminent destruction of evidence, or providing emergency assistance. What it doesn’t include: situations police deliberately create to justify entry, or speculative concerns that something bad might happen if they wait.

The May 2025 ICE Memo Reversing Warrant Policy

For decades, ICE operated under a clear policy: ICE officials (not judges) signed administrative warrants, and these couldn’t authorize forced entry into homes. A 2007 letter from DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff to Senator Christopher Dodd stated this plainly: “a warrant of removal is administrative in nature and does not grant the same authority to enter dwellings as a judicially approved search or arrest warrant.”

On May 12, 2025, Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons issued an internal memo reversing that position. The memo authorized ICE agents to use administrative warrants (internal ICE documents) as the sole basis for forcibly entering homes. Agents could knock, identify themselves, and if residents refused entry, use “necessary and reasonable force” to enter based solely on the administrative warrant.

ICE agents could now authorize their own home entries instead of asking judges. Instead of proving to a judge they had good reason, agents could now make that determination internally.

Professor Orin Kerr, a Fourth Amendment expert at the University of Arizona, analyzed the policy and concluded “the DHS position is likely wrong” because Supreme Court rulings say a judge must approve warrants. Multiple federal judges have expressed similar concerns. Some lower courts have ruled that ICE violated the Fourth Amendment by forcibly entering homes without judicial warrants when no emergency existed.

Operation Metro Surge began seven months later, deploying thousands of agents operating under this new authority.

Video Evidence Contradicts Official Narratives

The Department of Homeland Security’s initial characterization of Renée Good’s shooting claimed she “weaponized her vehicle” and “violently, willfully, and viciously ran over” the ICE agent. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem stated Good “attacked” agents and “attempted to run them over and ram them with her vehicle.”

Video shows Good steered away from the agent. She appeared to be driving in the correct direction of traffic on a one-way street. Ross drew his weapon and fired three shots in under one second while keeping his phone in his left hand.

When journalist Jake Tapper challenged Noem on this during a televised interview, directly stating “That’s not what happened. We all saw what happened,” Noem responded: “It absolutely is what happened.” Despite video evidence showing the opposite.

Federal officials initially claimed Pretti “wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.” President Trump posted an image of Pretti’s gun on social media and called him a “gunman.”

Video analysis by The New York Times and BBC showed Pretti holding his phone in his right hand and his glasses in his left. He wasn’t brandishing a weapon. Two witnesses testified under oath that Pretti never brandished his gun. Agents yelled that Pretti had a gun approximately eight seconds after he’d already been pinned to the ground—suggesting they discovered the weapon only after subduing him.

The weapon was legally owned. Pretti held a valid permit. The law says police can only use deadly force if someone poses an immediate threat—not based on the person’s prior conduct or whether they own a gun.

In both cases, the initial official narrative was contradicted by video evidence.

Federal Judges Document Systematic Court Order Violations

On January 27, 2026, federal Judge Patrick J. Schiltz held a hearing on compliance with court orders in immigration cases. Judge Schiltz estimated that ICE had violated federal court orders issued by Minnesota judges approximately 96 times that month alone. As he stated from the bench, it was likely that “ICE had violated more court orders in January than some federal agencies had in their entire existence.”

Judge Angel Kelley in Massachusetts documented that ICE moved a Salvadoran woman out of Maine without warning and in violation of a court order requiring she remain in place, causing her to miss a hearing to seek protection from deportation. The woman was attempting to establish she faced domestic abuse and qualified for protection—a process fundamentally disrupted by ICE’s violation.

Judge Sunshine Sykes in Los Angeles threatened to hold administration officials in punishment for ignoring a judge’s orders for what she labeled “continued defiance” of her orders providing class action relief to immigrants targeted for detention. Judge Donovan Frank said ICE was moving detainees to different states to avoid judges who might rule against them, suggesting ICE was hiding where detainees were.

When confronted with these violations, DHS officials didn’t express contrition. Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin labeled federal judges “activist judges” and declared that “DHS will continue to enforce the laws of the United States within all applicable constitutional guidelines. We will not be deterred by activists either in the streets or on the bench.”

This response reveals that when an executive agency systematically disregards judicial orders, the usual assumption that agencies will comply with court orders breaks down. Remedies available to judges—citations for ignoring orders, sanctions—prove ineffective when agency leadership has decided compliance would interfere with operational objectives.

Why Accountability Mechanisms Failed

When police shoot someone, several accountability mechanisms theoretically exist. They can be sued for damages under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Prosecutors can bring criminal charges under 18 U.S.C. Section 242, which makes it a federal crime for anyone acting as a government official to willfully deprive someone of constitutional rights. Normally the Civil Rights Division investigates when federal agents kill someone.

For federal agents, the Supreme Court has severely limited Bivens remedies in recent decades, restricting them to narrow circumstances and refusing to extend them to new contexts. The current state of this legal rule makes federal civil rights damages suits exceptionally difficult to pursue. Federal agents can claim a legal protection that usually shields them from lawsuits unless they violated rights that were obviously illegal at the time.

The Civil Rights Division has been systematically sidelined from investigating the Pretti and Good shootings. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche announced there was “no basis” for a criminal civil rights probe into Good’s death. Six career officials in the Civil Rights Division’s criminal section announced plans to leave the department, citing frustration with the handling of the shootings.

The Justice Department did announce a federal investigation into Pretti’s death—but not led by the Civil Rights Division. This broke from how these cases are normally handled. The Justice Department’s rules call these “national interest cases” requiring Civil Rights Division involvement.

When pressed to explain why one shooting merited investigation and the other didn’t, Blanche referenced a prior video of Pretti engaging in a confrontation with federal agents filmed approximately one week before his death. The Trump administration characterized this as evidence Pretti was an “agitator.” But as Pretti’s family noted, “nothing that happened a full week before could possibly have justified Alex’s killing.”

Congressional Funding Leverage and the $75 Billion Appropriation

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer outlined reforms Democrats wanted included in any funding bill: ending patrols that stop people without specific information about who they’re looking for; tightening warrant rules; requiring ICE to coordinate with state and local law enforcement; implementing a uniform code of conduct; barring agents from wearing masks; requiring body cameras; and mandating proper identification.

DHS Secretary Noem announced that every Homeland Security agent in Minneapolis would be issued body cameras—but only there, and with no clear provisions on when footage would be made available or how it would be retained. The Democratic proposal would mandate body cameras nationwide with transparency requirements.

A White House official stated that demanding reforms as a condition for funding DHS with only 48 hours left would shut down the government.

However, ICE had already received massive funding through a tax and spending bill passed the previous summer. Congress had allocated $75 billion to DHS for immigration operations over four years, with $45 billion going directly to ICE. This meant that even if annual appropriations lapsed, ICE could continue operating for years on previously appropriated funds.

Congress couldn’t threaten to cut funding to force compliance. As House Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro noted: “If funding runs out, TSA agents will work without pay, FEMA assistance could be delayed, and the U.S. Coast Guard will be adversely affected. All while ICE continues functioning without any change in their operations due to $75 billion it received in the One Big Beautiful Bill.”

The First General Strike in 80 Years

Four days before Pretti’s death, labor unions, community organizations, faith leaders, and immigrant rights groups called for what became the first general strike in the United States in 80 years. The strike, called “ICE Out of MN: Day of Truth and Freedom,” called on all Minnesotans to refrain from work, school, and shopping on January 23.

More than 700 small businesses across the state closed in solidarity. Cultural institutions shuttered. Hundreds of clergy members protested at the airport. Organizers estimated 50,000 people participated in outdoor protests in subzero temperatures.

The 2026 strike was explicitly political, unlike earlier general strikes focused on worker pay and conditions. The 2026 strike was about opposing federal policy. The organizers’ stated demands were: immediate withdrawal of ICE and Border Patrol agents from the state; criminal prosecution and legal accountability for those involved in the deaths of Good and Pretti; universities should take a stand against ICE.

On January 30, following Pretti’s death, organizers called for a second general strike and announced plans for a “National Shutdown” to expand the action beyond the state.

The strike showed what people could do when courts and Congress couldn’t stop ICE. Congress couldn’t use appropriations leverage effectively. Courts couldn’t enforce their orders. The Justice Department wouldn’t investigate.

The Structural Problem: Enforcing Court Orders Without Executive Cooperation

Judge Schiltz considered punishing the ICE director for ignoring court orders. But he ultimately backed off this threat, accepting a promise to do better without specifics. Schiltz praised career prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for “struggling mightily” to comply with court orders despite inadequate resources and lack of support from leadership.

Federal courts possess power to punish those who ignore their orders to enforce compliance, but the effectiveness of that power depends on the willingness of the executive branch to cooperate. When a president and presidential appointees take a position that they disagree with a court order, judges can’t force compliance without help from the president’s administration.

Historically, this issue has surfaced during moments of acute constitutional crisis. During the desegregation battles of the 1950s and 1960s, southern governors refused to follow Supreme Court orders to integrate schools, and the president had to send troops to force them to comply. In the 1830s, President Andrew Jackson refused to enforce a Supreme Court ruling about Native American rights, leading to catastrophic consequences for Native Americans.

The current ICE violations suggest a different pattern: ICE leadership chose operations over following the law. Judges can threaten punishment, but it doesn’t work if ICE decides following orders would get in the way.

Either the president would need to force ICE to comply, or Congress would need to use funding as leverage. Neither approach has worked. The president supports the operations. Congress lacks effective appropriations leverage. Courts cannot enforce their orders without cooperation from one of the other branches.

Unresolved Constitutional Questions

As of early February 2026, Operation Metro Surge continues. A federal judge refused to stop the operation, allowing it to proceed pending further litigation.

The Supreme Court has never directly addressed whether administrative warrants can satisfy Fourth Amendment requirements for home entries. Different federal courts have ruled differently on warrant questions. It’s unclear when ICE can claim an emergency justifies breaking the rules.

Remedies available for Fourth Amendment violations by federal agents remain inadequate. Lawsuits against them are hard to win. Prosecutors decide whether to investigate, and they’re choosing not to. Judges can’t punish ICE if ICE leadership decides following orders gets in the way.

What the events in Minneapolis revealed is that the Constitution only protects you if courts, Congress, and prosecutors enforce it. The Fourth Amendment’s words haven’t changed. But the ways to enforce it—court orders, funding decisions, prosecutions, lawsuits—have all failed when an agency chooses operations over following the law.

Two American citizens are dead. ICE has detained thousands of immigrants and separated them from families. ICE has systematically ignored court orders preventing deportations. Entire communities have lived in fear and experienced disruption and harm.

ICE is still using the May 2025 memo to force its way into homes. The Justice Department refuses to investigate whether federal agents broke the law. Congress can’t force ICE to follow the law. Federal judges keep issuing orders, and ICE keeps ignoring them.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.