A number of court challenges are tied to these constitutional amendments, with potentially significant consequences for immigration law.NBC NewsFeb. 22, 2026By Allan Smith and Scott WongIn and out of court, more than half of the amendments enshrined in the Bill of Rights are being fought over as a direct result of President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota.In his second term, Trump and his administration have been aggressive in stretching the boundaries of political conventions, resulting in a number of court challenges. Trump’s push to eliminate birthright citizenship, freeze federal funds and bypass Congress through executive orders have tested the separation of powers.The Twin Cities campaign, though, has been a flashpoint, with fights over at least six — the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and 10th — of the first 10 amendments. Conservative-leaning scholars see both lawyers and judges overstepping their bounds in fiery filings and opinions, while liberal-leaning counterparts see a notable disregard by the Trump administration for Bill of Rights provisions.[...]Yoo added that the contests over the Fourth Amendment might be the most significant as the space where individual liberties may most be at stake. That amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures and requires the federal government to obtain warrants based on probable cause to enter a person’s home. It has been tested under a Trump administration policy that allows Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to enter people’s homes with administrative warrants issued by the executive branch, instead of a judge.
I keep on having flashbacks to the Boston Tea Party, Writs of Assistance, and the Quartering Act!
West Virginia MetroNewsBy Brad McElhinnyFebruary 23, 2026When U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents wear masks and use unmarked vehicles to make arrests, a federal judge from West Virginia wrote, the tactics violate the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment by eliminating officer accountability and stripping people of due process.“A mask does one thing: it hides the face of the officer wearing it. On a public highway, in a civil arrest of a person suspected of no crime, the only purpose served by hiding an officer’s face is to prevent his identification. And preventing identification serves only to eliminate accountability.”The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable government searches and seizures of persons, houses, papers and effects. It requires that warrants be issued only upon probable cause, supported by oath and specifically describing the place to be searched and the items to be seized.
The judge had this to say...
Lawyers for the people in these cases contend that they have cooperated with the immigration system and that judges in that system should make final determinations of status. Instead, they have been caught up in sweeps, arrested and sent to jail without being charged with a criminal offense.Just last week, such cases were before Judges Thomas Johnston, Irene Berger and Goodwin in the southern district. In each case, the judges agreed that the original basis for arrest was flimsy, that being held in jail without a hearing was improper and that the people who were arrested should be released.
This is just one of many cases around the country that judges are ruling that the Constitution is being ignored!
The New Yorker writes,
Last week, the top federal judge in Minnesota accused Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) of violating nearly a hundred court orders in the month of January. In a ruling that was part of a contempt case involving Todd Lyons, the acting director of ICE, the judge, Patrick J. Schiltz, wrote, “ICE has every right to challenge the orders of this Court, but, like any litigant, ICE must follow those orders unless and until they are overturned or vacated.” ICE, Schiltz added, “is not a law unto itself.” The ruling marks perhaps the most serious turn in an ongoing battle between federal courts and the White House, with the Trump Administration often appearing to blatantly ignore court orders, or to comply with them only after being repeatedly warned to do so.[...]I think judges are being very careful. If they hold the government in contempt, and the government still doesn’t abide by the court orders, we might very well be in a constitutional crisis. The judges appear to be hoping upon hope that if they threaten contempt, the government will come into line, either in the individual case before the judge or across the board.
The Trump adminstration is just thumping their noses at the Constitution and the laws!
