The FBI spied on a private Signal group chat of immigrants’ rights activists who were organizing “courtwatch” efforts in New York City. Law enforcement records show the FBI gained access to a Signal group coordinating volunteers monitoring federal immigration court proceedings and labeled the court watchers as “anarchist violent extremist actors.” The FBI’s report, which did not clarify how they accessed the group or provide evidence of the “extremist” claims, was shared with other law enforcement agencies. Critics have condemned the surveillance, noting the non-violent nature of courtwatch efforts and likening the actions to past FBI overreach.
Read More
According to The Associated Press, the U.S. Border Patrol is operating a secretive surveillance program, monitoring millions of American drivers using license plate readers and predictive intelligence. This program analyzes travel patterns to identify and detain individuals deemed suspicious, often leading to aggressive questioning and searches based on pretextual traffic stops. The Border Patrol has expanded its reach beyond the border, collaborating with other agencies and utilizing AI, creating a mass surveillance network impacting people throughout the country. Civil liberties advocates raise concerns about the constitutionality of this program and its potential for abuse, as exemplified by cases where individuals were stopped and searched with no evidence of wrongdoing.
Read More
Leo Garcia Venegas, a U.S. citizen, is suing the Trump administration over warrantless construction site raids conducted by federal immigration agents. The lawsuit alleges that immigration officers target Latino workers without probable cause, violating Fourth Amendment rights. Venegas was detained twice in construction site raids, despite providing valid identification. The Institute for Justice, representing Venegas, argues that the Department of Homeland Security’s policies authorize these illegal actions, allowing agents to detain workers based on ethnicity and disregard evidence of citizenship. The lawsuit seeks to stop these “dragnet raids” and obtain damages for the constitutional violations.
Read More
The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, has allowed the Trump administration to use racial profiling in its immigration raids, overturning an injunction against targeting Latinos. Justice Sotomayor dissented, warning of the unconstitutional implications and potential for violence against Latinos, including U.S. citizens. This decision, made without explanation, impacts the “Operation at Large” in Los Angeles, which targeted individuals based on their ethnicity, language, and work, thereby violating Fourth Amendment protections. The court’s silence and Kavanaugh’s misrepresentation of the situation highlights the far-reaching consequences for those affected by these raids.
Read More
In a strongly worded dissent to the Supreme Court’s decision, Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the authorization of racial profiling by immigration agents, deeming it unconstitutional. She highlighted documented instances of physical force used by ICE agents in Los Angeles, who targeted individuals based on their appearance, language, and perceived profession. Sotomayor condemned the ruling, arguing it would subject countless individuals to unjust treatment, and directly challenged Justice Kavanaugh’s characterization of the ICE raids. Furthermore, Sotomayor asserted that the decision wrongly placed the burden on citizens to prove their legal status, effectively creating a second-class citizenship, in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Read More
A federal court in Southern California has ruled that ICE agents cannot rely solely on race or language to detain individuals, citing violations of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The court’s temporary restraining order follows a lawsuit and mandates that officers must have a reasonable suspicion of a violation of immigration law before stopping someone. This decision, while specific to the Central District of California, curtails ICE’s practices of targeting individuals based on ethnicity or location and denying them access to legal counsel. The ruling underscores that racism is not a valid basis for reasonable suspicion, and prevents ICE from continuing its previous practices.
Read More
A leaked internal memo reveals the Trump administration authorized warrantless home entries by ICE agents to apprehend suspected members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. This action, ordered by Attorney General Bondi, cited the impracticality of obtaining warrants for swift removals under the invoked Alien Enemies Act of 1798. Subsequently, over 200 Venezuelans, including individuals without criminal records, were deported, prompting lawsuits from the ACLU alleging Fourth Amendment violations. The legality of applying the Alien Enemies Act in the absence of declared war or invasion is heavily contested.
Read More
In October 2017, FBI agents mistakenly raided Trina Martin’s home, causing significant trauma to her, her boyfriend, and her son. Martin subsequently filed a lawsuit against the government, but a federal judge and appeals court dismissed it, arguing courts shouldn’t second-guess police “honest mistakes.” The Supreme Court will now decide whether the Federal Tort Claims Act allows such lawsuits against the government for wrong-house raids, a question with conflicting precedent across different circuit courts. The case highlights the need for clarity on holding law enforcement accountable for such errors.
Read More
In a memo obtained by USA Today, the Justice Department authorized ICE to conduct warrantless searches of homes suspected to harbor “alien enemies,” invoking the Alien Enemies Act. While warrants are preferred, the memo acknowledges practical limitations in swiftly apprehending such individuals. This authorization permits ICE agents to enter residences to apprehend suspected alien enemies if obtaining a warrant beforehand is deemed impractical, for example, during other enforcement operations. The power is contingent on a reasonable belief that the individual meets all four criteria for classification as an “alien enemy.”
Read More
Trump’s attempt to utilize the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to permit federal agents to enter homes without warrants represents a deeply troubling development. This obscure 18th-century law, invoked only three times in history—all during major wars—is now being considered as a potential loophole to circumvent fundamental constitutional rights. The act’s wording, allowing its use under a “warrant of a president,” presents a frighteningly broad interpretation of executive power. This interpretation opens the door to presidential authority to order warrantless searches, effectively bypassing the judicial branch’s crucial role in safeguarding individual liberties.
This action directly contradicts the core principles of the Fourth Amendment, which protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures.… Continue reading
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood