DHS Enforcement Under Fire: Courts Push Back on Constitutional Violations

Federal judges are increasingly finding serious problems with how immigration authorities conduct arrests and deportations

Here's What's Actually Happening

Multiple federal courts have issued injunctions against Department of Homeland Security enforcement practices in 2025, with judges finding violations of Fourth and Fifth Amendment protections. A federal judge in Los Angeles recently blocked immigration raids, writing that "roving patrols without reasonable suspicion violate the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution and denying access to lawyers violates the Fifth Amendment."

This isn't about partisan politics or "activist judges." This is about constitutional law meeting enforcement reality, and the courts are finding serious gaps between what DHS claims it's doing and what's actually happening on the ground.

The Pattern Recognition

Ever notice how enforcement controversies follow predictable cycles? Here's what makes 2025 different: DHS has implemented a "novel strategy" of dismissing immigration cases in court and immediately arresting people as they leave the building. Immigration advocates filed a class action lawsuit representing people who "appeared at their hearings intending to request protection or other legal status in the United States, only to have a government attorney unexpectedly ask the immigration judge to dismiss their cases."

The timing here is worth understanding. This strategy emerged as part of ICE's effort to meet a "steep new 3,000-person daily arrest quota." When agencies face numerical targets, procedural corners often get cut. Courts are noticing.

What Courts Are Actually Finding

Constitutional Violations in Multiple Jurisdictions:

In California, a federal judge found that immigration agents were "detaining people solely based on their race, clothing or occupation," which violates Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and Fifth Amendment due process guarantees.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that "the Fourth Amendment requires a neutral decisionmaker to review the detention of anyone held based on an ICE detainer," after ICE attempted to detain an American citizen without probable cause.

Due Process Problems:

ICE issued guidance giving "certain individuals facing deportation just six hours' notice to try to reach a lawyer." Legal experts point out this violates basic due process - as one federal court ruled decades ago, "notice which is a mere feint is not due process."

Courthouse Arrest Strategy Challenges:

A class action lawsuit challenges DHS's practice of dismissing cases "without the standard 10-day response period, documentation, or consent of the respondent" while ICE agents wait outside courtrooms. The legal argument is straightforward: this bypasses the statutory structure designed to protect due process rights.

The Missing Context Everyone's Ignoring

Before we focus solely on 2025 enforcement, it's worth noting that approximately 200,000 deportation cases were dismissed by immigration judges during the Biden administration because DHS hadn't filed required paperwork on time. Administrative failures aren't new - they're systemic.

The good news: these dismissals dropped 68% from their 2022 peak by early 2024. The concerning news: courts are now finding constitutional violations in how cases are being handled, not just administrative errors.

The difference matters. Missing paperwork deadlines is bureaucratic incompetence. Constitutional violations are a different category of problem entirely.

What's Really at Stake

For Law Enforcement Credibility: When federal courts repeatedly find constitutional violations, it undermines the entire enforcement system. As one immigration lawyer put it: "We are witnessing an authoritarian takeover of the U.S. immigration court system." Whether you agree with that characterization or not, judicial pushback signals serious procedural problems.

For Public Safety: The Supreme Court recently allowed deportations to third countries with minimal notice after the Trump administration argued that lengthy procedures prevent removal of people "most deserving of removal." But procedural shortcuts create their own risks - including wrongful deportations and constitutional violations that weaken the entire system.

For Constitutional Principles: As one federal judge wrote: "What the federal government would have this Court believe—in the face of a mountain of evidence presented in this case—is that none of this is actually happening." Courts exist to check executive power when constitutional lines are crossed.

What This Actually Means

Here's the big picture: enforcement agencies facing political pressure to produce results are cutting procedural corners, and federal judges are pushing back. This creates a legal mess that helps nobody.

The Enforcement Reality: DHS defends its operations as "highly targeted" and claims agents are trained to determine "status and removability" through proper procedures. But multiple federal courts are finding evidence that contradicts these claims.

The Constitutional Reality: Due process isn't a technicality - it's the system we use to prevent government overreach. When courts find systematic violations, that's a signal the system needs correction, not elimination.

The Practical Reality: Immigration lawyers report that "cases are piling up in the queue" as the administration encourages judge resignations and layoffs. Creating enforcement bottlenecks while cutting due process protections is a recipe for more court challenges, not fewer.

What to Watch For

Court Decisions: The class action lawsuit seeking to "enjoin the courthouse arrest policy" and "restore procedural protections in immigration court" will test whether federal judges can effectively limit executive enforcement power.

Supreme Court Response: The high court will likely need to clarify due process requirements for deportation proceedings, especially after issuing conflicting emergency orders earlier this year.

Enforcement Adaptation: Will DHS modify procedures to address constitutional concerns, or will we see continued court battles? The agency's response to judicial criticism will signal whether this is a temporary enforcement surge or a longer-term constitutional crisis.

The Bottom Line

Federal courts aren't blocking immigration enforcement - they're requiring it to follow constitutional rules. As one judge put it simply: enforcement operations must comply with "the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution" and provide "access to lawyers" as required by "the Fifth Amendment."

Whether you support aggressive enforcement or immigration protection, having courts find systematic constitutional violations undermines everyone's goals. A system that violates due process doesn't provide security - it provides chaos.

The pattern here suggests we're heading toward either significant procedural reforms or an escalating constitutional crisis. Neither outcome serves the public interest, but both are predictable results of enforcement policies that prioritize speed over legal compliance.

What patterns are you seeing in your area? Have you noticed changes in how federal enforcement operates locally? Join the discussion below - your ground-level observations help complete the national picture.