Viewpoint |
How ICE raids on homes violates the constitutional rights

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, agents are using aggressive and sometimes violent methods to make arrests in its mass deportation campaign.

by John E. Jones III
Dickinson College

As Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, agents continued to use aggressive and sometimes violent methods to make arrests in its mass deportation campaign, including breaking down doors in Minneapolis homes, a bombshell report from the Associated Press on Jan. 21, 2026, said that an internal ICE memo – acquired via a whistleblower – asserted that immigration officers could enter a home without a judge’s warrant. That policy, the report said, constituted “a sharp reversal of longstanding guidance meant to respect constitutional limits on government searches.”

Those limits have long been found in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Politics editor Naomi Schalit interviewed Dickinson College President John E. Jones III, a former federal judge appointed by President George W. Bush and confirmed unanimously by the U.S. Senate in 2002, for a primer on the Fourth Amendment, and what the changes in the ICE memo mean.

Okay, I’m going to read the Fourth Amendment – and then you’re going to explain it to us, please! Here goes:

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.

Can you help us understand what that means?

Since the beginning of the republic, it has been uncontested that in order to invade someone’s home, you need to have a warrant that was considered, and signed off on, by a judicial officer. This mandate is right within the Fourth Amendment; it is a core protection.

In addition to that, through jurisprudence that has evolved since the adoption of the Fourth Amendment, it is settled law that it applies to everyone. That would include noncitizens as well.

What I see in this directive that ICE put out, apparently quite some time ago and somewhat secretly, is something that, to my mind, turns the Fourth Amendment on its head.

What does the Fourth Amendment aim to protect someone from?

In the context of the ICE search, it means that a person’s home, as they say, really is their castle. Historically, it was meant to remedy something that was true in England, where the colonists came from, which was that the king or those empowered by the king could invade people’s homes at will. The Fourth Amendment was meant to establish a sort of zone of privacy for people, so that their papers, their property, their persons would be safe from intrusion without cause.

So it’s essentially a protection against abuse of the government’s power.

That’s precisely what it is.

Has the accepted interpretation of the Fourth Amendment changed over the centuries?

It hasn’t. But Fourth Amendment law has evolved because the framers, for example, didn’t envision that there would be cellphones. They couldn’t understand or anticipate that there would be things like cellphones and electronic surveillance. All those modalities have come into the sphere of Fourth Amendment protection. The law has evolved in a way that actually has made Fourth Amendment protections greater and more wide-ranging, simply because of technology and other developments such as the use of automobiles and other means of transportation. So there are greater protected zones of privacy than just a person’s home.

ICE says it only needs an administrative warrant, not a judicial warrant, to enter a home and arrest someone. Can you briefly describe the difference and what it means in this situation?

It’s absolutely central to the question here. In this context, an administrative warrant is nothing more than the folks at ICE headquarters writing something up and directing their agents to go arrest somebody. That’s all. It’s a piece of paper that says ‘We want you arrested because we said so.’ At bottom that’s what an administrative warrant is, and of course it hasn’t been approved by a judge.

This authorized use of administrative warrants to circumvent the Fourth Amendment flies in the face of their limited use prior to the ICE directive.

A judicially approved warrant, on the other hand, has by definition been reviewed by a judge. In this case, it would be either a U.S. magistrate judge or U.S. district judge. That means that it would have to be supported by probable cause to enter someone’s residence to arrest them.

So the key distinction is that there’s a neutral arbiter. In this case, a federal judge who evaluates whether or not there’s sufficient cause to – as is stated clearly in the Fourth Amendment – be empowered to enter someone’s home. An administrative warrant has no such protection. It is not much more than a piece of paper generated in a self-serving way by ICE, free of review to substantiate what is stated in it.

ICE agents continued raids in Minnesota on Jan. 18, 2026, pulling a man who was wearing only underwear and a blanket out of a house in St. Paul.

Have there been other kinds of situations, historically, where the government has successfully proposed working around the Fourth Amendment?

There are a few, such as consent searches and exigent circumstances where someone is in danger or evidence is about to be destroyed. But generally it’s really the opposite and cases point to greater protections. For example, in the 1960s the Supreme Court had to confront warrantless wiretapping; it was very difficult for judges in that age who were not tech-savvy to apply the Fourth Amendment to this technology, and they struggled to find a remedy when there was no actual intrusion into a structure. In the end, the court found that intrusion was not necessary and that people’s expectation of privacy included their phone conversations. This of course has been extended to various other means of technology including GPS tracking and cellphone use generally.

What’s the direction this could go in at this point?

What I fear here – and I think ICE probably knows this – is that more often than not, a person who may not have legal standing to be in the country, notwithstanding the fact that there was a Fourth Amendment violation by ICE, may ultimately be out of luck. You could say that the arrest was illegal, and you go back to square one, but at the same time you’ve apprehended the person. So I’m struggling to figure out how you remedy this.

About the author:

John E. Jones III, President, Dickinson College. He is also affiliated with Keep Our Republic’s Article Three Coalition.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Viewpoint |
Trump's costly deportation policy producing unwhelming results

Photo: Chad Stembridge/Unsplash

ICE’s stated enforcement goals with publicly available data, highlights the agency’s increasingly militarized presence in urban neighborhoods, and documents the erosion of due process protections.

by Van Abbott

A budget tells a story. It reveals priorities, exposes intentions, and signals how power will be used. The newly expanded budget for Immigration and Customs Enforcement tells a story that should alarm anyone who values fiscal integrity, constitutional limits, and democratic accountability.

In fiscal year 2024, ICE operated on a budget of roughly 10 billion dollars. Under the 2025 “Big Beautiful Bill,” the agency retained that base while receiving an additional 75 billion dollars in multiyear enforcement funding, available over approximately four years. Even if those supplemental funds are spread evenly, ICE now commands effective spending power of about 29 billion dollars annually. This is not an incremental increase. It is a structural transformation. An agency once described as a targeted enforcement body now wields resources approaching those of a national security institution, with little explanation and even less oversight.

The administration insists this surge in funding is about deportation. The observable outcomes suggest otherwise.

According to the Department of Homeland Security, a forced deportation costs approximately 18,000 dollars per person. By contrast, self deportation through the CBP Home app, including airfare, processing, and a cash stipend, costs about 5,100 dollars.

United States citizens are detained and required to prove their citizenship. Detainees report harsh and degrading treatment.

Using limited and unaudited publicly available data, ICE appears to have conducted roughly 300,000 to 330,000 formal forced removals over the past twelve months. In the final Biden administration fiscal year, ICE conducted approximately 271,000 forced removals. Even using the highest current estimate of 330,000, the increase amounts to about 59,000 removals, or roughly 22 percent.

Given the intensity of MAGA rhetoric and the extraordinary budgetary expansion directed at illegal immigration, one would expect a far greater increase in deportations during the first year of Trump’s return to office. That has not occurred.

This disparity raises a fundamental question. Are taxpayers funding effective immigration enforcement, or underwriting a vastly expanded apparatus whose mission now extends far beyond its original purpose? When spending multiplies while outcomes stagnate, and budgets swell while transparency shrinks, skepticism is not partisan. It is prudent.

What makes this moment especially troubling is how ICE now operates inside American cities. In Minneapolis and other urban centers, the agency has effectively occupied neighborhoods through sustained deployments, visible patrols, coordinated raids, and multiple deadly shootings. These actions resemble federal policing campaigns more than immigration enforcement. Streets are saturated with armed agents. Communities report a constant presence. The message is unmistakable. This is not about processing cases. It is about asserting control.

Alongside this urban expansion has come a collapse of constitutional safeguards. Masked agents conduct operations without visible identification. Homes are entered without warrants. Traffic stops occur without clear cause or authority. United States citizens are detained and required to prove their citizenship. Detainees report harsh and degrading treatment. To date, there is no public record of ICE officers being meaningfully disciplined for these actions. Authority expands. Accountability disappears. Due process erodes.

These are not isolated incidents. They reflect an institutional posture increasingly untethered from the rule of law. When agents conceal their identities, bypass judicial oversight, and face no consequences, the result is not enforcement but intimidation. The Constitution does not yield to expediency. Rights do not evaporate because an agency is well funded.

$85 billion dollars and no answers is not merely a budgeting problem.

The human cost is substantial. Raids executed with overwhelming force to apprehend nonviolent individuals traumatize families and destabilize neighborhoods. Faulty intelligence leads to mistaken targets, emotional harm, and property damage that is rarely reimbursed. Children watch parents taken away. Citizens discover that documentation offers no protection when an unaccountable force decides otherwise. Fear becomes routine. Trust becomes impossible.

The budget surge demands a more candid interpretation. A force that is lavishly funded, lightly supervised, and aggressively deployed within cities begins to resemble a national police force rather than an immigration service. It arrests without warrants, detains without explanation, and occupies neighborhoods without consent. It answers upward to executive authority, not outward to the public.

Three questions deserve direct answers. What problem justified a nearly threefold increase in annual spending power? Why do expenditures so dramatically exceed measurable outcomes? Who benefits from an enforcement body that grows more powerful as it grows less accountable?

Democracies rarely fail all at once. They erode through normalized excess, tolerated abuse, and unchecked authority. When budgets explode, rights contract, and accountability vanishes, the warning signs are unmistakable. Eighty five billion dollars and no answers is not merely a budgeting problem. It is a governance crisis.

About the author ~

Van Abbott is a long time resident of Alaska and California. He has held financial management positions in government and private organizations in California, Kansas, and Alaska. He is retired and writes Op-Eds as a hobby. He served in the Peace Corps in the late sixties. You can find more of his commentaries and comments on life in America on Substack.

TAGS: newly expanded budget for Immigration and Customs Enforcement tells a story, one would expect a far greater increase in deportations, how ICE now operates inside American cities, agents conceal their identities, bypass judicial oversight, and face no consequences

Viewpoint |
Milwaukee judge faces prison time in a case of judicial humanity

Leaked ICE data shows that 73 percent of people booked into ICE detention this fiscal year have no criminal convictions. Honoring the dignity of immigrants, including those without legal status, is an act of resistance.

by Terry Hansen
Guest Commentary

Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan has been convicted by a federal jury of felony obstruction for directing Eduardo Flores‑Ruiz, an undocumented immigrant, toward a back exit when she learned Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were waiting in the building. If the conviction is upheld, Dugan faces up to five years in prison.

The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign issued a coalition statement asserting that the conviction sets "a dangerous precedent," and that "This case was never about one individual. It was about whether people can still walk into a courthouse without fear and trust the justice system to protect them."

Notably, leaked ICE data analyzed by the Cato Institute show that 73 percent of people booked into ICE detention this fiscal year have no criminal convictions, nearly half lack even pending charges, and only 5 percent have violent convictions—contradicting claims of targeting “the worst of the worst.”

Legal scholar Samera Esmeir coined the term "juridical humanity," meaning the way law defines who counts as human. Esmeir describes the history of juridical humanity as a "tale about loss," including "the loss of the human to modern law, when the law laid claim to a monopoly over the power to declare the presence of the human."

Applied to Trump-era immigration policy and cases like Judge Dugan’s, it captures how people are rendered “human” only to the extent that they fit a legal status the state recognizes and values.

Current immigration practices embody this concept: threats of denaturalization against “disloyal” citizens and mass deportations to El Salvador’s CECOT mega-prison—often ignoring due process or torture allegations—relegate migrants to a downgraded humanity.

Law doesn’t just close borders; it manufactures lesser humans.

Congress’ failure to pass immigration reform helps entrench juridical humanity by freezing an outdated legal system and forcing battles over humanity into executive and judicial discretion, instead of democratic lawmaking.

Comprehensive reform has stalled for over two decades, leaving millions in precarious or “liminal” status—the undocumented, Dreamers (DACA), people with Temporary Protected Status, and long-term residents—whose basic life conditions depend on fragile, reversible policies rather than secure legal personhood.

In juridical humanity terms, Congress keeps in place a hierarchy where some people are fully recognized humans (citizens), while others are only partially recognized and can be detained, deported, or excluded with fewer protections because their legal status is unresolved or deliberately kept temporary.

Significantly, this past February, the White House posted a dehumanizing video on X of shackled and downcast detainees boarding airplanes, accompanied by the sounds of jangling chains and the revving of airplane engines. The post was titled "ASMR: Illegal Alien Deportation Flight."

ASMR (autonomous sensory meridian response) videos use visuals and sound to create a relaxing, tingling sensation that helps viewers de-stress. Elon Musk, then head of the Department of Government Efficiency, retweeted the post, writing “Haha wow,” along with emojis of a troll and a medal.

While the ideological façade of Trump's immigration policies is the protection of U.S. citizens, its goals clearly include humiliation and cruelty.

The Declaration of Independence is prominently displayed behind President Trump’s Oval Office desk. Its ideals proclaim that "all men are created equal” and “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” and that governments are "instituted" only “to secure” these pre-existing rights—not to grant or revoke them.

Honoring the dignity of immigrants, including those without legal status, is an act of resistance, an attempt to reclaim humanity from a restrictive, legally imposed form.

If appellate courts overturn Dugan's conviction, they will keep open a small, vital space where the law can still be forced, by both judges and movements, to acknowledge a humanity it did not create and has no legitimate authority to erase.

Terry Hansen is a retired educator who writes frequently about climate change and on human rights. He lives in Grafton, WIsconsin.

TAGS: US immigration system is outdated, Milwaukee County judge convicted of felony obstruction, people are only human if they have legal status, the law dehumanizes people who don't belong

Supreme Court blocks Trump's planned National Guard deployment to Chicago

In a 6-3 decision Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court left in place a lower court order barring President Donald Trump from deploying National Guard troops to Chicago while the underlying legal challenge continues.

by Brenden Moore & Hannah Meisel
Capitol News Illinois

SPRINGFIELD - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday kept in place a lower court’s ruling temporarily barring President Donald Trump from deploying National Guard troops to Chicago as part of his administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration.

The 6-3 ruling, which comes more than two months after the Trump Administration made an emergency appeal to the high court, effectively prevents the federal government from using federalized troops in Chicago while the underlying court case challenging the deployment continues.

“At this preliminary stage, the Government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois,” the court wrote in the unsigned opinion denying the request for a stay.

Conservative justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissented.

Read the ruling here.

More state news

Trump administration lawyers had argued the judicial branch had no right to “second guess” a president’s judgment on national security matters or resulting military actions.

The ruling represents a major setback for the Trump administration and a triumph for Gov. JB Pritzker and state Democratic leaders, who fiercely opposed and pushed back on the concept and practice of federal troops patrolling American streets.

Pritzker called the ruling “a big win for Illinois and American democracy.”

“This is an important step in curbing the Trump Administration's consistent abuse of power and slowing Trump’s march toward authoritarianism,” the governor said in a statement. “American cities, suburbs, and communities should not have to face masked federal agents asking for their papers, judging them for how they look or sound, and living in fear that President can deploy the military to their streets.”

Attorney General Kwame Raoul, whose office presented the state’s case, was also pleased with the court’s ruling.

“Nearly 250 years ago, the framers of our nation’s Constitution carefully divided responsibility over the country’s militia, today’s U.S. National Guard, between the federal government and the states — believing it impossible that a president would use one state’s militia against another state,” Raoul said. “The extremely limited circumstances under which the federal government can call up the militia over a state's objection do not exist in Illinois, and I am pleased that the streets of Illinois will remain free of armed National Guard members as our litigation continues in the courts.”

In early October, Trump ordered the federalization of 300 Illinois National Guardsmen over Pritzker’s objections and deployed 200 members of the Texas National Guard to Chicago.

The order came in as tensions flared outside the U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement’s processing facility in Chicago’s near-west suburb of Broadview, which had become the epicenter of protests against the Trump administration’s Chicago-focused "Operation Midway Blitz” immigration enforcement campaign launched in September. The administration claimed activists were violent and the National Guard was needed to protect federal agents and the ICE facility.

Trump’s deployment of troops to Los Angeles this summer marked the first time in 60 years that a president had taken control of a state’s National Guard without a governor’s consent. He’s also authorized troop deployments to Washington, D.C. and Portland, Oregon. All have been met with legal challenges, but the attempted deployment to Chicago was the first to reach the nation’s high court.

Operation Midway Blitz’s heavy immigration enforcement presence in Chicago and its suburbs continued through mid-November when U.S. Customs and Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino and his 200 agents abruptly left the area. During the more than more than two months of aggressive enforcement actions, agents arrested more than 3,000 people in the U.S. without legal authorization.

National Guard troops were only active for a day at the Broadview ICE facility before U.S. District Judge April Perry issued a temporary restraining order blocking their deployment. While Texas guardsmen were sent back to their state at the same time Border Patrol agents left Chicago last month, the 300 members of the Illinois National Guard have remained under the Trump administration’s authority. Federal officials have said both the Illinois and Texas guardsmen spent their time doing training exercises.

After their deployment, clashes between federal agents and civilians shifted from Broadview to Chicago neighborhoods, where agents — including Bovino, often used force like tear gas and other riot control weapons like tear gas and pepper balls to disperse crowds.

As those confrontations shifted, so did the arguments from Trump Administration lawyers, who said the militarized manpower was necessary to protect federal agents and property from “rioters” that they alleged have aimed fireworks at agents “and have thrown bottles, rocks, and tear gas at them.”

In a separate lawsuit, protesters, journalists and clergy won a preliminary injunction last month restricting agents from using from using riot control weapons. But after an initial ruling in the case from the 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals cast doubt on the judge’s legal authority to limit how immigration agents do their jobs, the plaintiffs asked that the case be dropped. Perry’s Oct. 9 ruling, in which she found “no credible evidence that there is a danger of rebellion in the state of Illinois,” was later backed up by a three-judge panel on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, which wrote that “political opposition is not rebellion.”

Raoul argued that the troop deployment violates Illinois’ rights as sovereign state to carry about its own law enforcement, as well as 1878 Posse Comitatus Act that bans the military from participating in domestic law enforcement.

National Guard members are often federalized for overseas missions. At the state level, the are often deployed by governors to respond to natural disasters and civil unrest.

Prior to this year, the last time a president federalized a state’s National Guard without a request from a state’s governor was in 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent federal troops to protect civil rights protesters in Alabama without the cooperation of segregationist Gov. George Wallace.

Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service that distributes state government coverage to hundreds of news outlets statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation.

Viewpoint |
Challenging the 'single story' of Somali immigrants

Ignore the negative hype from politicians and right-wing media. Stand fast and refuse their distorted framing of Somali Americans. It's just not American.

by Terry Hansen
Guest Commentary

When President Trump labeled Somali immigrants “garbage,” he weaponized presidential power to demean an entire community. In her insightful TED Talk, “The Danger of a Single Story," novelist Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie warns that "power lies not only in the ability to tell another person’s story, but to make it the definitive story of that person."

Yes, some Somali Americans in Minnesota have been implicated in financial fraud. That fact should be reported, but it should never become the sole lens through which we view an entire community— thousands of Somali families including refugees, healthcare workers, business owners and students.

The Somali American story includes triumphs over war and displacement, civic engagement in American politics, and contributions to Minnesota’s economy. When politicians or the media reinforce the “single story” of crime and corruption, they obscure a broader truth.

Adichie reminds us that “stories can break the dignity of a people, but stories can also repair that broken dignity.”

To honor the history of immigration in America, we must refuse the temptation to see any community through one distorted frame. It is our duty not to amplify division, but to tell stories that affirm our shared humanity.

Terry Hansen is a retired educator who writes frequently about climate change and on human rights. He lives in Grafton, WIsconsin.

TAGS: President Trump hating on Somali Americans, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie warning, Somali refugees contribute to the Minnesota economy, Politicians and the Media reinforce the same tired story

Illinois Governor signs bill enacting immigrant protections in and around state courthouses

New Illinois law protects people attending court, making them “privileged from civil arrest inside state courthouses and within a 1,000-foot buffer zone outside of the buildings.

by Brenden Moore
Capitol News Illinois

SPRINGFIELD - Christening it as part of a “nation-leading” response to aggressive federal immigration raids, Gov. JB Pritzker signed legislation Tuesday allowing Illinois residents to sue immigration agents who arrest them in or near courthouses or if they believe their constitutional rights were violated.

The new law — which lawmakers have acknowledged is likely to face a legal challenge — also requires public colleges and universities, hospitals and child care facilities to set up policies for dealing with immigration enforcement and mostly prohibits them from disclosing the immigration status of students, patients, parents and children.

“Together, we're sending a message to Donald Trump, to Kristi Noem, to Gregory Bovino and anyone else seeking to terrorize our people: Your divisiveness and your brutality are not welcome here,” Pritzker said, surrounded by state lawmakers and immigrant rights advocates in Chicago’s Little Village neighborhood.

“We know that this new set of laws can't mitigate all of the harm, but it gives us new protective tools and is a symbol of our shared action against those terrorizing, our communities and our state,” Pritzker said.

Response to ‘Midway Blitz’

The Democrat-led state legislature passed the bill in late October during the height of the federal immigration enforcement campaign known as “Operation Midway Blitz.”

Our rights follow us into the courthouse, onto campus, to the hospital and when taking our kids to day care

The Department of Homeland Security said the operation, which launched in September and wound down last month, resulted in the arrest of more than 3,000 immigrants who were living in Chicago and its suburbs without legal permission.

Though federal officials claimed they were targeting the “worst of the worst,” DHS data indicates that most arrested had no prior criminal convictions or pending charges.

The raids often led to violent confrontations between masked federal agents and protestors during various operations in the city and suburbs, including near an Immigration and Customs Enforcement processing facility in suburban Broadview. Many of these skirmishes resulted in the deployment of tear gas and other chemical agents.

Bovino and about 200 Border Patrol agents under his command left Chicago for southern states last month, though they could be back fourfold this March, the Chicago Sun-Times reported.

Senate President Don Harmon, D-Oak Park, said the law “sends the message that if you abuse your authority, there are consequences.”

“Our rights follow us into the courthouse, onto campus, to the hospital and when taking our kids to day care,” Harmon said. “No one gets to take them away. We are providing the victims of this chaotic federal assault a clear, legal path to go after their abusers and hold them accountable.”

With Pritzker’s signature, all people attending court are considered “privileged from civil arrest” inside state courthouses and within a 1,000-foot buffer zone outside of the buildings.

Illinois Republicans have criticized the provision, arguing that it would have unintended consequences for state and local law enforcement.

Though there had long been a de facto understanding that such facilities were off-limits for immigration enforcement, they have increasingly been the site of apprehensions over the past year. Those who violate the act could be liable for statutory damages of $10,000.

It gives people arrested under those circumstances the right to sue the agents who detained them.

Criticisms and potential challenge

The law also allows residents to sue immigration agents for violating their constitutional right to due process and protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

They would be able to collect punitive damages that can increase if the agents are wearing masks, concealing their identities, failing to wear body cameras or using a vehicle with a non-Illinois or obscured license plate.

Illinois Republicans have criticized the provision, arguing that it would have unintended consequences for state and local law enforcement. It also likely invites a legal challenge from the Trump Administration on the grounds that it violates the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution.

DHS spokeswoman Tricia McLauglin told Capitol News Illinois in an emailed statement that Pritzker “must be unfamiliar with the U.S. Constitution.”

“By signing this law, Pritzker violated the supremacy clause, his oath he took as governor to ‘support the Constitution of the United States’ — which itself falls under the oaths clause of the Constitution,” McLaughlin said. “We hope the headlines, social media likes, and fundraising emails he did this for are worth it!”

Harmon acknowledged in October that the law would likely be challenged, though Pritzker — one of Trump’s most pugnacious critics and seen as a potential 2028 Democratic candidate for president — said Tuesday that he believed it to be “in good shape.”

“Whenever you enact something that is tough, that is about protecting people, there are going to be people out there who attack it,” Pritzker said. “No doubt they have the ability to go to court about it. But I believe this is not just a good law, but a great law.”

Day cares, colleges and hospitals

The law requires all general acute care hospitals to implement a policy for interactions with law enforcement by Jan. 1. All other hospitals need a plan in place by March 1.

The law also prohibits day care centers from sharing the immigration status of children or parents unless required by law.

Illinois colleges and universities will need to have procedures in place for approving requests from law enforcement agents attempting to enter campus by the new year.

The law also prohibits day care centers from sharing the immigration status of children or parents unless required by law. It also requires the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services and Illinois Department of Early Childhood to provide “know your rights” materials and preparedness plans to families on their websites.

Day cares will also need to adopt plans for interacting with law enforcement agents and notifying parents if agents request a child’s information. State Rep. Norma Hernandez, D-Melrose Park, said that the fatal shooting of unarmed father and Mexican immigrant Silverio Villegas González in September by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer after dropping off his two young sons at school and day care in the Chicago area “reminds us why this law matters so deeply.”

“His death was not an isolated tragedy,” Hernandez said. “It is a painful reminder that without strong protections, everyday life becomes a place of danger, and that is where we are right now.”

In addition to the law, Pritzker signed an executive order in October creating the Illinois Accountability Commission, which has been tasked with producing a public record of alleged abuses perpetrated by federal agents during “Operation Midway Blitz.”

It will also examine the impact of such conduct on Illinois residents and communities and offer recommendations for accountability and reform.

Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service that distributes state government coverage to hundreds of news outlets statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation.

TAGS: Illinois send message to Donald Trump, New law prohibits university and hospitals from telling ICE immigration status, Illinois courthouse bill passed in October, 3,000 immigrants without status arrested in Illinois, Law gives people the right to sue customs agents

Federal judge rebukes DOJ over effort to limit future claims against immigration agents

Department of Justice makes the surprise motion to dismiss their case after an appeals court indicated it may not uphold the lower court judge’s order restricting use of force including tear gas and other riot control weapons.

by Hannah Meisel
Capitol News Illinois

CHICAGO - An attorney for the Trump administration on Thursday told a federal judge that it is “wrong to allege” the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Chicago-area “Operation Midway Blitz” immigration enforcement campaign is over, but declined to give any specifics on when the city may experience another surge of federal agents.

The comment came during a hearing Thursday in front of U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis on how best to wind down a lawsuit initiated earlier this fall by protesters, clergy and journalists over federal immigration agents’ use of riot control weapons like tear gas. Earlier this week in a surprise move, plaintiffs’ attorneys asked Ellis to dismiss the case.

The people of Chicago stood up to the Trump administration’s bullying and intimidation, and showed them they were messing with the wrong city.

After a marathon hearing last month that included video footage of U.S. Customs and Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino tackling a protester and throwing tear gas canisters into a crowd, Ellis issued a searing ruling granting a preliminary injunction restricting agents’ use of force. But the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals halted Ellis’ order, siding with the Trump administration’s argument that the judge overstepped and “impermissibly” infringed on how the executive branch conducts law enforcement activity.

The appeals court’s stay on Ellis’ order came in the days after Bovino and roughly 200 more Border Patrol agents left Chicago for North Carolina. At the same time, the Trump administration sent home approximately 200 members of the Texas National Guard who’d been flown to Illinois in early October to protect immigration agents but were blocked from deploying by another federal judge’s order.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys used Border Patrol agents’ departure in framing their motion to dismiss as a legal win, without addressing the specter of the 7th Circuit or U.S. Supreme Court gutting Ellis’ order or giving the Trump administration any permanent expanded powers against civilians.

“We won our case the day they left town,” plaintiffs’ attorney David Owens of Loevy & Loevy said in a statement Tuesday. “The people of Chicago stood up to the Trump administration’s bullying and intimidation, and showed them they were messing with the wrong city.”

In response, the administration wrote in a Thursday morning filing that the move was “transparent procedural gamesmanship,” a characterization U.S. Department of Justice attorney Elizabeth Hedges repeated later during the hearing in front of Ellis.

A dismissal of this lawsuit can in no way give defendants a free hall pass to beat up press, protesters, priests months (or) years from now and commit other constitutional violations.

Addressing plaintiffs’ contention that Operation Midway Blitz was over, Hedges said the administration was “pushing back on that as a factual matter.” “We’re making the point that they’re wrong to allege it’s over,” she said. “They’re free to look at news reports and make whatever conclusions on what they want to do in this court.”

But she demurred when Ellis asked whether immigration agents were “returning to Chicago imminently to continue Operation Midway Blitz.” "We’re not committing one way or the other on the future,” Hedges said.

Based on news reports last month that Bovino would return to the Chicago area in the early spring with a much larger contingent of agents, Ellis scheduled a trial in the case for March 2, telling attorneys during a mid-November hearing that, “It would make sense that if it does ramp up again, everyone knows what the rules are.”

But that trial, along with arguments set for later this month in front of the 7th Circuit, will now be canceled.

Hedges also tried to assert that Ellis’ dismissal of the lawsuit would bar members of the public from bringing legal action against the Trump administration alleging possible future violations of their constitutional rights by immigration agents. But plaintiffs’ attorney Craig Futterman of the University of Chicago Law School’s Mandel Legal Aid Clinic disagreed.

"A dismissal of this lawsuit can in no way give defendants a free hall pass to beat up press, protesters, priests months (or) years from now and commit other constitutional violations,” he said. “That’s not how the law works.”

Ellis also told Hedges, “that’s now how the law works.”

“And while it was the government’s position that no agent did anything illegal or unconstitutional, having watched the videos, having read the reports, having listened to the witnesses, I strongly disagree,” the judge said.

TAGS: DOJ response to Operation Midway Blitz lawsuit developments, federal court ruling on immigration agents’ use of force in Chicago, Seventh Circuit actions on Sara Ellis injunction against DHS, legal challenges involving Border Patrol operations in urban protests, Trump administration defense of Operation Midway Blitz continuation

No Kings Movement gears up for nationwide October 18 demonstrations

Millions of Americans are preparing to take part in the second nationwide No Kings day of action on October 18. Over 2,100 local rallies across all 50 states aim to defend democracy and resist authoritarianism.

URBANA - When millions of Americans stepped into the streets this past June for the first “No Kings” day of action, it wasn’t just a single day’s protest. For many, it felt like the spark of something larger. Now, four months later, that spark has grown into a nationwide call for unity and defiance. On October 18, people from every corner of the country will gather again to raise their voices against what they see as a dangerous slide toward authoritarianism.

More than 2,100 local protests and rallies have already been confirmed, stretching across all 50 states. Organizers expect the turnout to surpass June’s demonstrations, which drew an estimated five million participants. From small towns to major cities, the gatherings are intended to be peaceful yet powerful reminders that democracy belongs to the people.

“Trump wanted a coronation on his birthday, and what he got instead was millions of people standing up to say no kings,” said Ezra Levin, co-founder of Indivisible. “On October 18, we’re going to show up stronger and more organized than ever before.”

For community members preparing to join the marches, the day is about more than politics. April Verrett, president of the Service Employees International Union, described it as a defense of what everyday people have built together. “Working people built this country, not billionaires,” she said. “We’re protecting what we’ve built, and we’re building what’s next.”

That sense of collective ownership runs through many of the groups now organizing events. Nurses plan to march alongside teachers. Environmental advocates will walk with civil rights organizers. Veterans will stand shoulder to shoulder with young people rallying for the first time. Each community carries its own reasons for being there, but all are tied together by a common theme: resisting the concentration of power in one man’s hands.

For Jacob Thomas, a U.S. Air Force veteran, it comes down to honoring the oath he once swore. “Generations before us defeated fascism abroad,” he said. “Now it is up to us to defeat fascism at home.”

Organizers emphasize that the demonstrations will remain peaceful, with volunteers trained in de-escalation and safety. Local partners are working to create spaces where families can participate, and where communities can share both their frustrations and their hopes.

Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said that hope remains at the heart of the effort. “This country does not and will never have a king,” she said. “The power of the people is and will continue to be greater than the man obsessed with keeping power for himself.”

As October 18 approaches, the coalition behind the movement — which includes Indivisible, SEIU, Human Rights Campaign, ACLU, National Nurses United, Public Citizen, MoveOn, and many others — is asking neighbors to bring their families, their signs, and their voices. Whether in a downtown square or a small-town park, they say the act of showing up together is what matters most.

“It’s not about party, it’s about what Americans want and need,” said Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers. “A government that upholds freedom and opportunity. A government that solves problems. A government that believes in democracy, not dictatorship.”

For those planning to attend, details about participating cities and local events can be found at NoKings.org. Organizers are encouraging participants to bring courage, compassion, and an unwavering belief that, in America, power must remain with the people — not with a king.

Judge rules Illinois cannot be denied federal emergency funds

A federal judge rules that Illinois cannot be denied emergency funding for refusing to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.

by Ben Szalinski
Capitol News Illinois

Photo: Capitol News Illinois/Andrew Adams

Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul discusses a lawsuit against the federal government at a news conference in January 2025.

SPRINGFIELD - The Trump administration cannot withhold federal emergency funding from Illinois because the state refuses to participate in federal immigration enforcement, a Rhode Island federal judge ruled on Wednesday.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order in January requiring the Department of Homeland Security and agencies under its command, such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, to stop providing federal funds to states that don’t cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.

The move was designed to force states like Illinois to abandon laws that prohibit law enforcement from participating in civil immigration enforcement. Trump’s order could have applied to hundreds of millions of dollars of federal funding Illinois receives for natural disaster responses and other emergencies. But a judge ruled it unconstitutional after Illinois and other states sued.

“I appreciate the court’s conclusion that DHS’ decision-making process was ‘wholly under-reasoned and arbitrary,’” Attorney General Kwame Raoul said in a statement. “The court’s ruling will ensure vital dollars that states rely on to prepare for and respond to emergencies are not withheld simply for political purposes.”

The 2017 TRUST Act, signed by Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner, prohibits Illinois law enforcement from arresting a person based solely on their immigration status. In most cases, law enforcement cannot assist immigration officials with detaining people based solely on immigration status, according to Raoul’s office.

The judge ruled that the order violates the Constitution because Congress controls spending. The attorneys general filed the suit in the U.S. District Court of Rhode Island.

“Sweeping immigration-related conditions imposed on every DHS-administered grant, regardless of statutory purpose, lack the necessary tailoring,” U.S. District Judge William E. Smith wrote. “The Spending Clause requires that conditions be ‘reasonably calculated’ to advance the purposes for which funds are expended ... and DHS has failed to demonstrate any such connection outside of a few programs.”

Abortion funding

Raoul also filed a new motion on Wednesday alongside 21 other states and Washington, D.C., that seeks to stop a new federal law from blocking funding to Planned Parenthood and other health care facilities that provide abortion services.

The attorneys general originally filed the lawsuit at the end of July to challenge a provision in congressional Republicans’ “One Big Beautiful Bill” that prohibits abortion clinics from using Medicaid funding for reproductive health services for one year.

The attorneys general argue the timeline of the law and details about which providers are included is too vague.

“We are urging the court to halt enforcement of the Defund Provision, which is clearly intended to shutter Planned Parenthood,” Raoul said in a statement. “Planned Parenthood facilities play a key role in our nation’s health and wellness by providing preventative care to more than 1 million Americans.”

The motion comes as Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin announced Wednesday that it will pause scheduling abortions because of the bill, causing fears for Illinois abortion providers about a surge in demand. Wisconsin Attorney General Joshua Kaul is also part of the lawsuit.

Federal raids intensify in Chicago amid deadly incident and public outcry

Federal agents expand immigration raids in Chicago. Hands Off Chicago poll shows majority of residents oppose federal immigration enforcement in the city.

by Ben Szalinski
Capitol News Illinois

SPRINGFIELD - The federal government is significantly ramping up immigration enforcement in the Chicago area as a specialized federal law enforcement team arrived in Chicago on Tuesday.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commander Gregory Bovino posted a video on social media announcing his specialized team has arrived in Chicago to “continue the mission we started in Los Angeles.”

Kristi Noem in Chicago with ICE — Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem speaks with one of two men being processed by Homeland Security officials during a visit to Springfield on May 7, 2025.

At the same time, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem shared a video of herself participating in an early morning immigration raid reportedly at a house in Elgin , where the Chicago Tribune reported an American citizen was briefly detained. “President Trump has been clear: if politicians will not put the safety of their citizens first, this administration will,” Noem said in a statement. “I was on the ground in Chicago today to make clear we are not backing down.”

The enhanced immigration enforcement began earlier this month and has been dubbed “Operation Midway Blitz” by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, while Bovino said he is leading a separate CBP plan called “Operation At Large.” It’s not clear what, if any, difference there is between the operations.

The operations have not been strictly limited to Chicago. Residents have reported seeing federal agents in several suburbs. How long the operations will last also remains unclear. Illinois officials say they have been left almost entirely in the dark about federal agents’ work.

Gov. JB Pritzker said federal officials are not communicating with Illinois law enforcement groups, which he argued is making their work more dangerous.

“When they (local law enforcement) see skirmishes going on, they don't know if those are real ICE officials, especially if they're wearing masks and in unmarked cars and aren't carrying or showing their identification,” Pritzker said Tuesday.

Illinois law prohibits law enforcement from participating in civil immigration enforcement, but it does not outright ban communication between state and federal agencies.

Tense encounters

DHS’ work has already turned deadly after an ICE agent shot and killed a man last week in Franklin Park. The undocumented man, who CBS News reported has no criminal history beyond traffic violations, allegedly tried to flee from ICE agents during a traffic stop and struck and dragged an agent in the process, causing serious injury, according to DHS. Federal authorities said that prompted an agent to shoot and kill the man.

DHS has released little information about the shooting, prompting calls for answers by state leaders. Pritzker pointed out Monday that Illinois law enforcement agencies would have already released substantial information and began investigations had the incident been an officer-involved shooting.

“This is the most unusual situation I’ve seen in my entire lifetime where we have no transparency and the federal government is not policing itself,” Pritzker said Monday.

Trump had previously backed off sending the Guard to Chicago because Pritzker refused to ask the president for a deployment.

Some public officials have directly confronted DHS agents. State Sen. Karina Villa, D-West Chicago, posted a video Monday showing her approaching masked federal agents in SUVs in a West Chicago neighborhood. Villa, a candidate for comptroller, was seen running down the street telling people to hide in their homes.

Crowds have also gathered in protest outside a Broadview detention facility where ICE is holding people in custody. The protests have occasionally devolved into skirmishes with ICE tactical teams as protesters have blocked entries and exits into the facility.

The Hands Off Chicago coalition of groups opposing ICE and National Guard soldiers in Chicago released a poll Wednesday showing Chicagoans largely oppose the Trump administration’s immigration tactics. The poll conductedlast week by Public Policy Polling of 582 registered Chicago voters found 66% oppose federal immigration enforcement and 73% believe President Donald Trump is threatening to send the National Guard to Chicago for political reasons.

Trump reconsidering National Guard

After initially backing off sending the National Guard to Chicago in favor of an apparent crime-focused mission in Memphis, Trump has again pledged that Chicago will be the next city to see a National Guard deployment.

Trump had previously backed off sending the Guard to Chicago because Pritzker refused to ask the president for a deployment, but Trump now says he will do it anyway. The Constitution places significant limits on the federal government to send the U.S. military into a city for police action without a request by the governor or mayor.

State leaders have encouraged people protesting immigration enforcement to remain peaceful ...

Pritzker told reporters Tuesday he is done trying to guess what Trump will do as the pair continues to exchange barbs through TV cameras.

“I think he might be suffering from some dementia,” Pritzker said. “You know, the next day he'll wake up on the other side of the bed and stop talking about Chicago. So I've never really counted on anything that he said as real.”

State leaders have encouraged people protesting immigration enforcement to remain peaceful as they fear Trump will use any skirmishes with law enforcement as justification to deploy the National Guard.

Meanwhile, immigration advocacy groups are encouraging residents to know their rights, such as what types of warrants require them to open the door to police, and their right to an attorney if detained.

TAGGED: Chicago immigration raids, ICE operations Chicago, Trump immigration Chicago, DHS enforcement Chicago, National Guard Chicago deployment

Viewpoint |
How ICE raids on homes violates the constitutional rights

Viewpoint |
Trump's costly deportation policy producing unwhelming results

Viewpoint |
Milwaukee judge faces prison time in a case of judicial humanity

Supreme Court blocks Trump's planned National Guard deployment to Chicago

More state news

Viewpoint |
Challenging the 'single story' of Somali immigrants

Illinois Governor signs bill enacting immigrant protections in and around state courthouses

Response to ‘Midway Blitz’

Criticisms and potential challenge

Day cares, colleges and hospitals

Federal judge rebukes DOJ over effort to limit future claims against immigration agents

No Kings Movement gears up for nationwide October 18 demonstrations

Judge rules Illinois cannot be denied federal emergency funds

Abortion funding

Federal raids intensify in Chicago amid deadly incident and public outcry

Tense encounters

Trump reconsidering National Guard

More Sentinel Stories

Sentinel Prep Sports

Editor's Choice

The rise of U.S. authoritarianism a midwest professor issues warning about popular tactics

On This Day

Photo Galleries

Varsity Snapshot

Search the Sentinel

Top stories this year

More Editorial Viewpoints

More Editorial Viewpoints

More state news

More Editorial Viewpoints

Response to ‘Midway Blitz’

Criticisms and potential challenge

Day cares, colleges and hospitals

More on Illinois politics

Abortion funding

Tense encounters

Trump reconsidering National Guard

More Sentinel Stories

Sentinel Prep Sports

Editor's Choice

On This Day

Photo Galleries

Varsity Snapshot

Search the Sentinel

Top stories this year