IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT 101—THE CALL FOR JUDICIAL WARRANTS BY THE LUNATICS IN CONGRESS IS WRONG AND UNWORKABLE
INTRODUCTION
In law school I was taught that to understand even the most complex of laws, it is important to understand the public policies that spawned them. For decades, Congress has determined that if the Executive directs the removal of aliens within the interior, that such removal, being a civil matter in most cases, will be done quickly and efficiently. Warrantless arrests and the use of non-judicial administrative warrants are specifically permitted, and the relevant enabling legislation will be set forth in this article. Democrats in Congress are in naked pretextual political midterm mode and seek to turn routine and long-standing practices into another delay tactic that will tie up courts and magistrates that do not even have a traditional role in the removal matrix. Those who contest a removal decision from an Administrative law judge can appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals and then to a Circuit Court of Appeal and even the Supreme Court on a very limited record. Congress intended for the busy District Courts to tend to their normal Article III business without this distraction. The new call for “judicial warrants” places District Courts and United States Magistrate Judges in a new and untenable position. Politics has no place in this design, and clearer heads in Congress should leave the status quo in place.
This President, as the Chief Executive in charge of the faithful execution of the laws, was elected to see to the largest mass deportation of illegal aliens in this nation’s history. His election on this issue was due in large part to the evisceration of the immigration law by the corrupt Biden Administration, which unabashedly ignored well-settled law with the goal of pandering to the open-borders anarchy of the new extreme left. Americans want the law enforced, and to his credit, President Trump is willing to endure the political accountability artificially created by foreign money and influence and this new issue for anarchists and communists to cling to. We need to stay the course in ALL of the cities that choose to obstruct and incite lawlessness in the face of federal agents properly enforcing federal law. Mayors and Governors have crossed the line from passively refusing to cooperate, which is their prerogative, to inciting and obstructing federal enforcement efforts. Most Americans can see through this chicanery.
My goal here is to set forth the law and clear a path through the garbage rhetoric that is spewing from the mouths of those who could care less about the truth. After all, there is fundraising, you know.
FEDERALISM IS THE FOUNDATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PLAN
The following is from the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Arizona v. United States, 587 U.S. 387 (2018), wherein the Court held that most of an Arizona law, which purported to empower state law enforcement to unilaterally enforce immigration law, was in violation of the Supremacy Clause and unenforceable. The holding established that the federal government was solely charged with that responsibility but also encouraged a spirit of cooperation by state officials in that mission. Most states do have a policy of some form of cooperation, and we know the ones who do not. The Court defined the principles of federalism critical to the existence of two sovereigns, state and federal, each with delegated and reserved powers:
“Federalism, central to the constitutional design, adopts the principle that both the National and State Governments have elements of sovereignty the other is bound to respect. See Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 457, 111 S.Ct. 2395, 115 L.Ed.2d 410 (1991); U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 838, 115 S.Ct. 1842, 131 L.Ed.2d 881 (1995) (KENNEDY, J., concurring). From the existence of two sovereigns, the possibility that laws can be in conflict or at cross-purposes. The Supremacy Clause provides a clear rule that federal law “shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Art. VI, cl. 2. Under this principle, Congress has the power to preempt state law. See Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363, 372, 120 S.Ct. 2288, 147 L.Ed.2d 352 (2000); Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 210-211, 6 L.Ed. 23 (1824). There is no doubt that Congress may withdraw specified powers from the States by enacting a statute containing an express preemption provision.”
Congress has done this in the enactment of pervasive enforcement provisions that include removal authority using civil administrative warrants and provisions for warrantless arrest. The legislation is so clear and pervasive that in the primary enforcement role, the federal government, through ICE and CBP, has the sole authority to do this. Both agencies can act at the border and in the interior, using warrantless arrests and detentions. The enabling legislation is as follows at 8 U.S.C. Section 1357:
“1357. Powers of immigration officers and employees
(a) Powers without warrant
Any officer or employee of the Service authorized under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General shall have power without warrant—
- (1) to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States;
- (2) to arrest any alien who in his presence or view is entering or attempting to enter the United States in violation of any law or regulation made in pursuance of law regulating the admission, exclusion, expulsion, or removal of aliens, or to arrest any alien in the United States if he has reason to believe that the alien so arrested is in the United States in violation of any such law or regulation and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest, but the alien arrested shall be taken without unnecessary delay for examination before an officer of the Service having authority to examine aliens as to their right to enter or remain in the United States;
- (3) within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States, to board and search for aliens any vessel within the territorial waters of the United States and any railway car, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle, and within a distance of twenty-five miles from any such external boundary to have access to private lands, but not dwellings, for the purpose of patrolling the border to prevent the illegal entry of aliens into the United States;
- (4) to make arrests for felonies which have been committed and which are cognizable under any law of the United States regulating the admission, exclusion, expulsion, or removal of aliens, if he has reason to believe that the person so arrested is guilty of such felony and if there is likelihood of the person escaping before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest, but the person arrested shall be taken without unnecessary delay before the nearest available officer empowered to commit persons charged with offenses against the laws of the United States; and
- (5) to make arrests-
- (A) for any offense against the United States, if the offense is committed in the officer’s or employee’s presence, or
- (B) for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States, if the officer or employee has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such a felony”
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAS CONSIDERED THE CONDITIONS FACED BY FEDERAL AGENTS AND HAS PROPERLY DEFINED WHEN A WARRANTLESS ARREST IS APPROPRIATE
On January 28, 2026, ICE, through Todd Lyons acting for the Director, issued a comprehensive Memorandum setting forth the policies of the agency regarding warrantless arrests, as well as arrests by civil administrative warrant. An excerpt is reproduced HERE.
Congress has long designated removal a civil matter in most cases, unless there is a subsequent removal which is criminal. In the civil removal environment, the arrest documents are designated Form I-200 and Form I-247, both of which set forth a recitation of probable cause that the subject of removal is that person and that there is probable cause for removal. These may be executed by a specially trained agent or a supervisory agent and have long been honored by state officials who do not take an obstructionist view. For instance, an I-247 Detainer is a request by federal immigration enforcement officials to a state agency (the sheriff as jailer or state prison officials) holding a person who has committed a crime and is removable to be held past a date of scheduled release for up to 48 hours so they may be taken into custody. These requests are lawful and long-standing, and now Congress wishes to require judicial warrants issued by a federal court for the sole purpose of delay and obstruction. The civil nature of these proceedings allows for the present procedure, which has been in effect for decades. Arrests and detentions of people are necessary to remove them, and the public policy embodied in the existing regulations contemplates an expeditious procedure, not a cumbersome one. In Minneapolis and elsewhere, including in Fairfax, Virginia, the release of criminals through a failure to recognize this lawful process has led to tragedies, including the murder of Laken Riley and others. In addition, a long pattern of illegals running and escaping, sometimes with the complicity of judges and other state actors, makes it easier for field agents to conclude that a person is likely to escape, permitting warrantless detention pending the obtaining of a probable cause-based civil administrative warrant from a properly trained agent or supervisor. These can be executed in the field on an expedient basis. Failure to recognize these is based on politically fueled obstruction and encourages the escape of those who have no business in this country.
THE SUPREME COURT HAS RECOGNIZED THE VALIDITY OF THESE PROCEDURES AS PART OF THE NECESSARY COOPERATION BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL OFFICIALS TO ENSURE THE ORDERLY ADMINISTRATION OF IMMIGRATION LAW
In Arizona v. United States, cited earlier herein, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the federal government is the single sovereign responsible for maintaining a comprehensive and unified system of immigration enforcement. The Court concluded that no coherent understanding of the term “cooperation” would incorporate the unilateral decision of state officers to arrest an alien for being removable absent any request, approval, or other instruction from the federal government. The Court made it clear that local law enforcement officers cannot arrest undocumented immigrants for federal immigration violations absent direction or authorization by federal officials. The Court, as well as numerous federal courts, has held that a Form I-247 Immigration Detainer accompanied by an I-200 Administrative Warrant attesting to probable cause of removability is one way ICE and/or CBP requests cooperation from local law enforcement officials. There is no reason to change this except naked, disingenuous politics. The Court stated:
“Agencies in the Department of Homeland Security play a major role in enforcing the country’s immigration laws. United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is responsible for determining the admissibility of aliens and securing the country’s borders. See Dept. of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, Immigration Enforcement Actions: 2010, p. 1 (2011). In 2010, CBP’s Border Patrol apprehended almost half a million people. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a second agency, “conducts criminal investigations involving the enforcement of immigration-related statutes.” ICE also operates the Law Enforcement Support Center. LESC, as the Center is known, provides immigration status information to federal, state, and local officials around the clock. ICE officers are responsible “for the identification, apprehension, and removal of illegal aliens from the United States.” Immigration Enforcement Actions, Hundreds of thousands of aliens are removed by the Federal Government every year. The pervasiveness of federal regulation does not diminish the importance of immigration policy to the States. Arizona bears many of the consequences of unlawful immigration. Hundreds of thousands of deportable aliens are apprehended in Arizona each year. Dept. of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, 2010 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics 93 (2011) (Table 35). Unauthorized aliens who remain in the State constitute, by one estimate, almost 6% of the population. See J. Passel & D. Cohn, Pew Hispanic Center, U.S. Unauthorized Immigration Flows Are Down Sharply Since Mid-Decade 3 (2010). And in the State’s most populous county, these aliens are reported to be responsible for a disproportionate share of serious crime. See, e.g., S. Camarota & J. Vaughan, Center for Immigration Studies, Immigration and Crime: Assessing a Conflicted Issue 16 (2009) (Table 3) (estimating that unauthorized aliens constitute 8.9% of the population and are responsible for 21.8% of the felonies in Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix).”
These statistics hold true in many places where so-called “sanctuary” policies do nothing more than protect criminal illegals and those that would shield them from true justice. ICE has a valuable role, and a failure of cooperation by miscreants like Tim Walz, Jumbo Pritzker, and Gavin Newsom strays into outright obstruction and incitement to obstruct and not only encourages criminality, but such conduct is, in and of itself, criminal. The Supreme Court went on to stress the importance of cooperation with federal officials:
“Consultation between federal and state officials is an important feature of the immigration system. Congress has made clear that no formal agreement or special training needs to be in place for state officers to ‘communicate with the [Federal Government] regarding the immigration status of any individual, including reporting knowledge that a particular alien is not lawfully present in the United States.’ 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(10)(A). And Congress has obligated ICE to respond to any request made by state officials for verification of a person’s citizenship or immigration status. See § 1373(c); see also § 1226(d)(1)(A) (requiring a system for determining whether individuals arrested for aggravated felonies are aliens). ICE’s Law Enforcement Support Center operates ’24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year’ and provides, among other things, ‘immigration status, identity information and real-time assistance to local, state and federal law enforcement agencies.'”
FEDERAL COURTS HAVE VALIDATED THE USE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE WARRANT PROCEDURE IN RECENT CASES
There is strong judicial precedent for the continued use of civil administrative warrants in the removal process. The following are examples of cases that have considered the issue directly and indirectly:
“Rios v. Jenkins, 390 F. Supp. 3rd 714 (W.D. Va. 2019).
In Rios, the United States District Court held that a Virginia Sheriff was entitled to qualified immunity when his office detained, for a reasonable time, a person who had been charged with a state crime and was in custody when Forms I-247 and I-200 were delivered to him in the ordinary course by federal immigration authorities. Considering federal precedent, the District Judge held that the recitation of probable cause in such documents was properly relied upon by the Sheriff and that holding Rios for a period of up to 48 hours after the time that he would have been released on the state charges was within the bounds of due process. Such practice also comports with the Fourth Amendment as well as that scope of cooperation authorized by the Supreme Court in Arizona v. United States and 8 USC Section 1357 (g)(10)(B).
2. Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012), discussed elsewhere herein and also relied upon by the Rios court, which held, in part, that local law enforcement authorities may cooperate with federal authorities responsible for immigration enforcement and detain persons who are the subject of removal proceedings when requested or directed to do so by ICE or CBP pursuant to federal statutes authorizing such cooperation. Delivery of Forms I-247 and I-200 are examples of such requests and direction.
3. Santos v. Frederick County Board of Commissioners, 725 F3d 451 (4th Cir 2013), wherein the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held, by implication, that local law enforcement officers may detain a person, for a reasonable time, based upon a civil immigration violation after receipt of federal direction and authorization in the form of the detainers described above. Santos was considered by the court in Rios.
4. City of El Cenizo v. Texas, 890 F3d 164 (5th Cir 2018), wherein the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of a state law mandating that state law enforcement officials cooperate with ICE officials in the detainer context, observing that current ICE policy requires that Form I-247 be accompanied by the Form I-200 attestation of probable cause and that the certification by ICE may be relied upon by state law enforcement officials and that such probable cause is imputed to them, and, further, that the certification in such forms ‘evidences probable cause of removability in every instance.'”
CONCLUSION
Congress has in the past squandered opportunities to tighten removal procedures and enshrine in the law what most Americans think is the most logical—that persons who sneak into this country and were not permitted in should have no greater rights than those summarily turned away at the border. The fiction that their presence on U.S. soil somehow entitles them to burden our courts, both Article III and non-Article III, with appeals and the right to request “judicial process” flies in the face of both common sense and our collective sense of justice. The existing administrative process in place is at least a compromise and should remain the law of the land. By holding funding of DHS hostage to this fundamental change in how we remove those who do not belong here is slow-motion amnesty that will do nothing to make us safer or more fiscally responsible. It cannot succeed.
Mike Imprevento
February 2nd, 2026
