1. United States
2. Wash.
3. Letter

DHS funding expired last Friday. At the same time, administration officials reportedly declared that requiring ICE to obtain judicial warrants before entering private homes is a “non-starter.” The Fourth Amendment is not optional. It requires that warrants be issued by a judge (NOT DHS!) only upon probable cause, supported by oath, and particularly describing the place to be searched. If compliance with the Fourth Amendment is a “non-starter,” then unconditional funding must be as well. This is not theoretical. In Idaho, a recent federal raid resulted in the detention of more than 100 undocumented immigrants and the temporary detention of many U.S. citizens and lawful residents. These are precisely the kinds of operations that require strict constitutional guardrails. This is exacerbated by the recent ruling of. the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that certain immigrants may be detained without any opportunity for a bond hearing in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. While appellate review may follow, the decision is binding for now. This creates the real possibility of prolonged civil detention without judicial oversight. Congress cannot finance warrantless home entries and indefinite detention. Any DHS funding bill must: 1. Require judicial warrants based on probable cause before ICE enters a private residence. 2. Guarantee prompt bond hearings or individualized custody review. 3. Require public reporting of detentions involving U.S. citizens or lawful residents. 4. Establish clear identification standards to prevent masked, unaccountable enforcement actions. 6. Guarantee independent inspection access to all detention facilities, including privately operated centers. Further, Congress must include explicit clawback authority through 2029 if DHS violates constitutional protections, or ignores judicial directives, or expands its detention capacity without statutory safeguards. The power of the purse exists precisely to prevent executive overreach. Security requires legitimacy. Enforcement requires due process. Funding without conditions would signal that constitutional compliance is negotiable. It is not. Stand firm. Do not finance practices that treat the Bill of Rights as optional.