ICE Under the Constitution: A Legal Accounting of 2025-2026 Enforcement Actions

Scope and Methodology

This briefing examines whether U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) actions during the period January 2025 through May 2026 have violated federal law or the U.S. Constitution. It draws exclusively from federal court rulings, Supreme Court opinions, congressional reports, established legal analyses (Brennan Center, Harvard Law Review, ACLU), investigative journalism from wire services (Reuters, AP, NPR, PBS), and direct documentation from organizations such as Human Rights Watch. Every factual claim is cited to a primary or credible secondary source.

This is a legal analysis, not a policy argument. The question is narrow: did specific actions violate existing law? Where courts have ruled, those rulings are presented. Where litigation is pending, that status is noted. Where reasonable legal disagreement exists, both sides are stated.

  <h2>The 4,400 Rulings: Systemic Illegal Detention</h2>
  <p>A Reuters investigation published in February 2026 documented that federal courts have ruled more than <strong>4,400 times</strong> that ICE jailed people illegally &mdash; and that it hasn't stopped the practice.<sup><a href="#s1">[1]</a></sup> These rulings span multiple administrations but have accelerated sharply since January 2025.</p>
  <p>The pattern is consistent: individuals file habeas corpus petitions challenging their detention, and federal judges find that ICE held them beyond legal authority &mdash; either without required bond hearings, past statutory time limits, or without legal basis for detention in the first place. Since January 2025, immigrants have filed more than <strong>30,000 habeas corpus petitions</strong> in federal court alleging illegal detention.<sup><a href="#s2">[2]</a></sup></p>
  <p>The Harvard Law Review, in a 2025 analysis titled "The Law and Lawlessness of U.S. Immigration Detention," documented the structural mechanisms that allow this pattern to persist: the immigration detention system operates with less judicial oversight than the criminal justice system, ICE exercises broad discretion over custody decisions, and the consequences for violating detention rules are minimal.<sup><a href="#s3">[3]</a></sup></p>
  <p>A class action settlement in the <em>Gonzalez v. ICE</em> case, effective March 4, 2025, attempted to address one dimension of this problem by limiting ICE's PERC to issuing only "Requests for Notification of Release" rather than detainers &mdash; preventing local jails from holding people beyond their release dates at ICE's request.<sup><a href="#s4">[4]</a></sup> The underlying constitutional issue is the <strong>Fourth Amendment</strong> (unreasonable seizure) and the <strong>Fifth Amendment</strong> (due process), which require that detention be legally authorized and subject to judicial review.</p>

  <h2>Warrantless Home Entry: The I-205 Memo</h2>
  <p>On May 12, 2025, DHS issued an internal memo titled <em>"Utilizing Form I-205, Warrant of Removal"</em> to all ICE personnel. The memo authorized ICE officers to <strong>forcibly enter and search homes</strong> using only an administrative form (Form I-205) &mdash; a document drafted, signed, and issued by DHS officials, not by any judge.<sup><a href="#s5">[5]</a></sup></p>
  <p>The memo was distributed under extraordinary secrecy. Personnel were required to review the document in the presence of a supervisor, return it, and were prohibited from taking notes on its contents.<sup><a href="#s6">[6]</a></sup></p>

  <h3>The Whistleblower</h3>
  <p>Ryan Schwank, a senior ICE attorney who became an instructor at the ICE Academy at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Georgia, resigned on February 13, 2026, to speak publicly. His account:</p>
  <blockquote>"On my first day, I received secretive orders to teach new cadets to violate the Constitution by entering homes without a judicial warrant. Never in my career had I ever received such a blatantly unlawful order."<sup><a href="#s7">[7]</a></sup></blockquote>
  <p>Schwank further revealed that ICE training hours had been reduced by approximately 40%, eliminating courses on proper use of force, detainee property handling, and integrity awareness training.<sup><a href="#s7">[7]</a></sup></p>

  <h3>The Constitutional Problem</h3>
  <p>The Brennan Center for Justice published a detailed legal analysis identifying three core Fourth Amendment violations in the memo:<sup><a href="#s8">[8]</a></sup></p>
  <table>
    <thead>
      <tr><th>Requirement</th><th>Judicial Warrant</th><th>Form I-205</th></tr>
    </thead>
    <tbody>
      <tr><td>Issued by</td><td>Independent judge</td><td>Executive agency officer</td></tr>
      <tr><td>Based on</td><td>Probable cause reviewed by neutral magistrate</td><td>Immigration removability determination</td></tr>
      <tr><td>Neutral review</td><td>Yes &mdash; separation of powers</td><td>No &mdash; same agency seeking the arrest approves it</td></tr>
      <tr><td>Supreme Court standard</td><td>"Neutral and detached magistrate"</td><td>Not met</td></tr>
    </tbody>
  </table>
  <p>The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that "the home is first among equals" in Fourth Amendment analysis, and that entering a dwelling to execute an arrest requires either a judicial warrant or narrow exceptions such as genuine emergencies. The Brennan Center analysis concluded that administrative warrants designed for inspections cannot substitute for judicial authorization in arrest contexts.<sup><a href="#s8">[8]</a></sup></p>
  <p>Fourth Amendment protections extend to all people within U.S. borders, regardless of immigration status. The government's claim that undocumented immigrants receive diminished Fourth Amendment protections lacks Supreme Court support.<sup><a href="#s8">[8]</a></sup></p>

  <h3>The Lawsuit</h3>
  <p>On April 2, 2026, Protect Democracy, the ACLU, and allied organizations filed <em>Gibson Brown v. Mullin</em> against DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin and ICE Director Todd M. Lyons, representing three households whose homes were entered without judicial warrants. The suit seeks to vacate the policy under both the Fourth Amendment and the Administrative Procedures Act (for failure to provide public notice and comment).<sup><a href="#s5">[5]</a></sup></p>
  <p>NBC News reported in January 2026 that ICE had been entering homes without judicial warrants since at least the summer of 2025 &mdash; months before the memo became public.<sup><a href="#s9">[9]</a></sup></p>

  <h2>Minneapolis: Operation Metro Surge and Detention Conditions</h2>
  <p>In January 2026, ICE launched "Operation Metro Surge" in Minneapolis-St. Paul, resulting in thousands of arrests. The operation prompted multiple federal lawsuits and a landmark ruling.</p>
  <p>U.S. District Judge Nancy E. Brasel &mdash; <strong>a Trump appointee</strong> &mdash; issued a 69-page ruling finding that ICE agents engaged in a "pattern and practice" of violating detainees' constitutional rights.<sup><a href="#s10">[10]</a></sup><sup><a href="#s11">[11]</a></sup></p>

  <h3>Conditions Documented by the Court</h3>
  <ul>
    <li>72 detainees were given <strong>two flip phones</strong> to share, with each person limited to <strong>two minutes</strong> per call</li>
    <li>Detainees were moved between facilities rapidly and without notice, making it impossible for attorneys to locate them</li>
    <li>Phone calls were monitored by ICE officers</li>
    <li>In-person attorney visits were rejected by ICE officers</li>
    <li>Detainees were pressured to sign removal forms without legal consultation</li>
    <li>Incomplete and inaccurate attorney contact lists were provided</li>
  </ul>
  <p>Judge Brasel wrote:</p>
  <blockquote>"The Constitution does not permit the government to arrest thousands and disregard constitutional rights because honoring them would be challenging."<sup><a href="#s10">[10]</a></sup></blockquote>
  <p>And:</p>
  <blockquote>"It appears that in planning for Operation Metro Surge, the government failed to plan for the constitutional rights of its civil detainees."<sup><a href="#s10">[10]</a></sup></blockquote>

  <h3>Court-Ordered Remedies</h3>
  <p>Judge Brasel ordered:<sup><a href="#s10">[10]</a></sup></p>
  <ul>
    <li>Detainees must be able to contact a lawyer <strong>within one hour</strong> of detention</li>
    <li>A <strong>72-hour buffer</strong> before any out-of-state transfer</li>
    <li><strong>Unlimited</strong> attorney phone calls</li>
    <li>In-person private visits any day</li>
    <li>Transfer notification with destination information</li>
  </ul>
  <p>Additionally, the ACLU filed a separate suit challenging ICE and CBP's practice of <strong>suspicionless stops, warrantless arrests, and racial profiling</strong> of Minnesotans during the operation.<sup><a href="#s12">[12]</a></sup></p>
  <p>Two U.S. citizens &mdash; Renee Good and Alex Pretti &mdash; were fatally shot by DHS officers during the Minneapolis enforcement surge in January 2026.<sup><a href="#s10">[10]</a></sup></p>

  <h2>The Alien Enemies Act: A Wartime Statute Used in Peacetime</h2>
  <p>On approximately March 15, 2025, President Trump invoked the <strong>Alien Enemies Act of 1798</strong> to target alleged members of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan criminal organization. The government sent approximately 137 people to El Salvador under this statute.<sup><a href="#s13">[13]</a></sup></p>
  <p>Prior to this, the Alien Enemies Act had been used exactly <strong>three times</strong> in American history &mdash; all during declared wars: the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II.<sup><a href="#s14">[14]</a></sup></p>

  <h3>Court Rulings Against Its Use</h3>
  <p><strong>District Court (Southern District of Texas):</strong> A Trump-appointed federal judge <strong>permanently blocked</strong> the administration from detaining, transferring, or removing Venezuelans under the Act, ruling that the invocation "exceeds the scope" of the law. This was the first time a federal judge declared the use of the Alien Enemies Act in this context unlawful.<sup><a href="#s15">[15]</a></sup></p>
  <p><strong>Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (September 2025):</strong> A three-judge panel ruled 2-1 that the Act was not intended for use against criminal gangs. The majority opinion stated:</p>
  <blockquote>"A country's encouraging its residents and citizens to enter this country illegally is not the modern-day equivalent of sending an armed, organized force to occupy, to disrupt, or to otherwise harm the United States."<sup><a href="#s14">[14]</a></sup></blockquote>
  <p>The panel found "no invasion or predatory incursion" meeting the statutory threshold.<sup><a href="#s14">[14]</a></sup></p>
  <p><strong>Supreme Court:</strong> The Court ruled that people being deported under the Act are entitled to <strong>reasonable time to challenge their removals</strong>, and temporarily blocked deportations of a group of Venezuelans who had received only hours' notice.<sup><a href="#s13">[13]</a></sup></p>
  <p><strong>Due Process Ruling (December 2025):</strong> Chief Judge James Boasberg of the D.C. District Court ruled that the Venezuelan deportees were <strong>denied their due process rights</strong> before removal, receiving no meaningful opportunity to challenge allegations that they were gang members. He certified them as a class of approximately 137 individuals and ordered the administration to either facilitate their return or provide due process hearings by January 5, 2026.<sup><a href="#s16">[16]</a></sup></p>

  <h2>Abrego Garcia: Deporting a Protected Person</h2>
  <p>Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national living in Maryland, held a valid work permit and was subject to a <strong>court-ordered withholding of removal</strong> &mdash; meaning a federal judge had already ruled he could not be deported to El Salvador because he faced danger there. He was a union sheet metal apprentice and father of three.<sup><a href="#s17">[17]</a></sup></p>
  <p>On March 12, 2025, ICE detained him while driving home from work. Three days later, on March 15, he was flown to El Salvador and imprisoned in CECOT. The government acknowledged this was an "administrative error."<sup><a href="#s17">[17]</a></sup></p>

  <h3>Supreme Court: Unanimous</h3>
  <p>On April 10, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a <strong>unanimous decision</strong> authored by Chief Justice John Roberts. The Court affirmed:</p>
  <blockquote>"The United States acknowledges that Abrego Garcia was subject to a withholding order forbidding his removal to El Salvador, and that the removal to El Salvador was therefore illegal."<sup><a href="#s18">[18]</a></sup></blockquote>
  <p>The Court ordered the government to <strong>"facilitate" Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador</strong> and ensure his case is handled as it would have been had he not been unlawfully deported.<sup><a href="#s18">[18]</a></sup></p>

  <h3>The Government's Response</h3>
  <p>On April 15, 2025, a DHS official filed a sworn declaration stating that "DHS does not have authority to forcibly extract an alien from the domestic custody of a foreign sovereign nation." The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the administration's appeal, calling the deportation "shocking."<sup><a href="#s19">[19]</a></sup></p>
  <p>During an Oval Office visit on April 14, El Salvador's President Nayib Bukele stated he would not initiate a return of Abrego Garcia.<sup><a href="#s18">[18]</a></sup></p>
  <p>The legal significance of this case extends beyond one person: it established that the government cannot render a Supreme Court order moot by claiming it lacks power to undo what it unlawfully did.</p>

  <h2>CECOT: Deportation to Torture</h2>
  <p>The Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (CECOT), a mega-prison in El Salvador, received approximately 252 Venezuelan nationals deported from the United States. Human Rights Watch and the Salvadoran human rights organization Cristosal conducted an investigation, interviewing <strong>40 of the 252 detainees</strong> along with 150 relatives, lawyers, and acquaintances.<sup><a href="#s20">[20]</a></sup></p>

  <h3>Who Was Sent There</h3>
  <ul>
    <li>Approximately <strong>half had no criminal history</strong> whatsoever</li>
    <li>Only <strong>3 percent</strong> had been convicted in the U.S. of a violent or potentially violent offense</li>
    <li><strong>62 individuals</strong> were removed during active asylum proceedings after having passed credible fear screenings</li>
  </ul>

  <h3>Documented Conditions</h3>
  <p>The findings, which Human Rights Watch stated had "not been linked to acts of systematic torture on this scale since Abu Ghraib":<sup><a href="#s20">[20]</a></sup></p>
  <ul>
    <li><strong>Regular beatings</strong>: Guards and riot police "regularly beat Venezuelans" during daily cell searches and for minor infractions. One detainee described being made to "kneel, handcuffed" while officers beat him "with batons, kicks, and fists&hellip;for 30 or 40 minutes"</li>
    <li><strong>Sexual violence</strong>: Three individuals reported sexual abuse. One detailed that "four guards sexually abused him" and forced oral sex, with officers who "played with their batons on my body"</li>
    <li><strong>Retaliation for exercising rights</strong>: Several detainees reported severe beatings <em>after</em> speaking with International Committee of the Red Cross staff. One stated guards "kept hitting me, in the stomach, and when I tried to breathe, I started to choke on the blood"</li>
    <li><strong>Denial of medical care</strong>: Limited access to health care and medicine, scarce and inadequate food, poor hygiene and sanitation</li>
    <li><strong>Enforced disappearance</strong>: The U.S. and Salvadoran governments "repeatedly refused to disclose information" about detainees' whereabouts to families and lawyers</li>
  </ul>

  <h3>Legal Characterization</h3>
  <p>Human Rights Watch concluded the treatment constituted:<sup><a href="#s20">[20]</a></sup></p>
  <ul>
    <li><strong>Refoulement</strong>: Sending detainees to a place where they face torture &mdash; a violation of the Convention Against Torture, to which the U.S. is a party</li>
    <li><strong>Enforced disappearance</strong>: A violation of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance</li>
    <li><strong>Torture</strong>: "Systematic violations" designed to "subjugate, humiliate, and discipline detainees" &mdash; violating the Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment) and the Fifth Amendment (due process), as well as the Convention Against Torture</li>
  </ul>
  <p>The Trump administration paid El Salvador <strong>$4.76 million</strong> to house these individuals.<sup><a href="#s21">[21]</a></sup> The deportees were eventually sent to Venezuela in July 2025 in a prisoner swap.<sup><a href="#s22">[22]</a></sup></p>

  <h2>Defying the Courts</h2>
  <p>On March 15, 2025, Chief Judge James Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order barring the government from deporting Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act. <strong>After</strong> this written order was entered, and after Boasberg orally instructed government lawyers to return migrants on planes already en route, the planes landed in El Salvador and the migrants were transferred to CECOT.<sup><a href="#s23">[23]</a></sup></p>
  <p>Judge Boasberg found the administration demonstrated <strong>"a willful disregard"</strong> for his order and that <strong>"probable cause exists to find the government in criminal contempt."</strong> He stated:</p>
  <blockquote>"The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders."<sup><a href="#s23">[23]</a></sup></blockquote>
  <p>The judge found the administration engaged in "increasing obstructionism" and "stonewalling," refusing to answer basic questions about passenger numbers, timing, and custody transfers. The Justice Department could not identify who ordered the planes to continue after the court order.<sup><a href="#s23">[23]</a></sup></p>
  <p>Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Salvadoran President Bukele made public statements that Boasberg interpreted as "boasts" suggesting deliberate defiance of the order.<sup><a href="#s23">[23]</a></sup></p>
  <p>However, a divided federal appeals court subsequently <strong>blocked Boasberg</strong> from pursuing contempt proceedings in a 2-1 decision, ordering him to end the criminal contempt investigation.<sup><a href="#s24">[24]</a></sup></p>

  <h3>Additional Instances</h3>
  <p>This was not an isolated incident. A federal judge in Massachusetts found the administration violated a court order by attempting to deport migrants to South Sudan.<sup><a href="#s25">[25]</a></sup> The Trump administration filed a lawsuit against <strong>all 15 federal judges in Maryland</strong> over an order blocking immediate deportation of migrants challenging their removals.<sup><a href="#s26">[26]</a></sup></p>

  <h2>Sensitive Locations: Churches, Schools, Hospitals</h2>
  <p>On January 21, 2025, DHS rescinded decades-old policies (first issued in 2011, reinforced under both Obama and Biden administrations) that restricted ICE from conducting enforcement actions near schools, churches, hospitals, and courthouses without high-level supervisory approval.<sup><a href="#s27">[27]</a></sup></p>
  <p>The rescission itself is a policy change, not inherently a legal violation. However, subsequent enforcement actions have generated legal challenges:</p>
  <ul>
    <li>In July 2025, a coalition of Christian denominations filed suit arguing ICE arrests at places of worship violate religious freedoms under the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act</li>
    <li>Over 1,400 churches are protected under a federal injunction in Maryland</li>
    <li>ICE resumed making arrests in and around courthouses &mdash; including immigration court, civil court, and family court &mdash; raising concerns about chilling access to justice (potential Sixth Amendment implications for anyone involved in criminal proceedings)</li>
  </ul>

  <h2>U.S. Citizens and Legal Residents Detained</h2>
  <p>ProPublica documented that more than <strong>170 U.S. citizens</strong> were detained by immigration agents in 2025, with at least 20 held over a day without contact. A congressional subcommittee report contained accounts from 22 citizens describing their detention experiences.<sup><a href="#s28">[28]</a></sup></p>
  <p>The expansion of expedited removal on January 21, 2025 &mdash; applying it to anyone anywhere in the U.S. who cannot prove they have been in the country for at least two years &mdash; increases the risk of erroneous removal of citizens and lawful permanent residents. The process permits a low-level immigration officer to serve as both prosecutor and judge, with minimal judicial oversight.<sup><a href="#s28">[28]</a></sup></p>
  <p>Reported cases include: a Canadian woman detained while renewing a visa, a Ph.D. student arrested with a valid student visa, and a green card holder detained after decades in the United States.<sup><a href="#s28">[28]</a></sup></p>

  <h2>Detention Growth and Deaths</h2>
  <p>The American Immigration Council reported in 2026 that:<sup><a href="#s28">[28]</a></sup></p>
  <ul>
    <li>ICE detention population rose <strong>nearly 75%</strong> in 2025 &mdash; from approximately 40,000 to 66,000, the highest level ever recorded</li>
    <li>Arrests of people with <strong>no criminal record</strong> surged by <strong>2,450%</strong> in 2025</li>
    <li><strong>More people died</strong> in ICE detention in 2025 than in the previous four years combined</li>
    <li>73% of ICE detainees have no criminal convictions; only 5% have violent convictions</li>
  </ul>

  <h2>Constitutional Provisions Violated: A Summary</h2>
  <p>Based on the court rulings and legal analyses documented above:</p>
  <table>
    <thead>
      <tr><th>Amendment / Law</th><th>Protection</th><th>How Violated</th><th>Court Finding</th></tr>
    </thead>
    <tbody>
      <tr>
        <td><strong>Fourth Amendment</strong></td>
        <td>Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures</td>
        <td>Warrantless home entries using Form I-205; suspicionless stops in Minneapolis; prolonged detention without legal basis</td>
        <td>4,400+ habeas rulings; <em>Gibson Brown v. Mullin</em> (pending); ACLU Minnesota suit</td>
      </tr>
      <tr>
        <td><strong>Fifth Amendment</strong></td>
        <td>Due process of law</td>
        <td>Deportation without notice or hearing (AEA); removal of people with valid court orders; denial of access to counsel; pressured signing of removal forms</td>
        <td>Boasberg Dec. 2025 ruling; Brasel Minneapolis ruling; Supreme Court (AEA notice requirement)</td>
      </tr>
      <tr>
        <td><strong>Eighth Amendment</strong></td>
        <td>Prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment</td>
        <td>Transfer to CECOT where detainees were systematically tortured; detention deaths exceeding four prior years combined</td>
        <td>HRW documentation; <em>J.G.G. v. Trump</em> proceedings</td>
      </tr>
      <tr>
        <td><strong>Article III / Separation of Powers</strong></td>
        <td>Judicial authority; enforcement of court orders</td>
        <td>Defiance of TRO on AEA deportations; refusal to comply with Supreme Court order to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return; suing all 15 Maryland federal judges</td>
        <td>Boasberg probable cause for criminal contempt; Supreme Court unanimous ruling in <em>Noem v. Abrego Garcia</em></td>
      </tr>
      <tr>
        <td><strong>Alien Enemies Act of 1798</strong></td>
        <td>Wartime authority only ("invasion or predatory incursion")</td>
        <td>Used against alleged gang members in peacetime &mdash; first non-wartime invocation in the statute's 227-year history</td>
        <td>5th Circuit blocked (2-1); S.D. Tex. permanently enjoined; Supreme Court required due process notice</td>
      </tr>
      <tr>
        <td><strong>Convention Against Torture</strong></td>
        <td>Prohibition of refoulement (return to torture)</td>
        <td>Deportation to CECOT despite documented torture conditions; removal of Abrego Garcia despite withholding order</td>
        <td>HRW findings; Supreme Court affirmed Abrego Garcia's removal was illegal</td>
      </tr>
      <tr>
        <td><strong>Administrative Procedure Act</strong></td>
        <td>Notice-and-comment rulemaking</td>
        <td>I-205 home entry memo issued as secret policy without public notice, comment period, or rulemaking</td>
        <td><em>Gibson Brown v. Mullin</em> (pending)</td>
      </tr>
    </tbody>
  </table>

  <h2>Conclusion</h2>
  <p>The factual record, as established by federal courts including the Supreme Court, shows that ICE enforcement actions in 2025-2026 have violated constitutional rights across multiple dimensions. These are not allegations &mdash; they are findings by federal judges, including multiple Trump appointees.</p>
  <p>The most legally significant findings include:</p>
  <ol>
    <li>A <strong>unanimous Supreme Court</strong> finding that a deportation was illegal and ordering the government to facilitate a return it then refused to carry out</li>
    <li>A federal judge finding <strong>probable cause for criminal contempt</strong> after the administration defied a court order to halt deportation flights</li>
    <li>An ICE senior attorney <strong>resigning and testifying</strong> that he was ordered to teach cadets to violate the Constitution</li>
    <li><strong>Human Rights Watch documenting systematic torture</strong> of deportees sent to a foreign prison by the U.S. government &mdash; conditions they compared to Abu Ghraib</li>
    <li>A Trump-appointed judge finding ICE engaged in a <strong>"pattern and practice"</strong> of violating detainees' constitutional rights during a mass arrest operation</li>
  </ol>
  <p>Whether these findings lead to systemic reform, further court orders, or continued noncompliance remains an open question. What is not in dispute &mdash; because courts have ruled &mdash; is that laws were broken.</p>