Every day, so many of us watch the actions of ICE agents in Minnesota and think, “That cannot be legal.” As content creators and news outlets break down events in real time, we grapple with the reality that it is far more complicated than that. It would be comforting to believe these agents are simply rogue actors, breaking the law in plain sight and daring courts and communities to stop them. What is happening here is more insidious.
Suggested Reading
Federal immigration agents are not abandoning the law. They are hollowing it out. They are stretching it, finessing it, and exploiting its gray areas to terrorize communities while maintaining the appearance of legality. Minnesota has become the testing ground. This enforcement operation has gone on longer than any previous surge and involves more federal agents than we have seen before. That is not an accident. It has allowed ICE to experiment with tactics that sit just inside the lines of the law while pushing those lines as far as they will go.
Take administrative warrants. Unlike judicial warrants, which are signed by a judge, administrative warrants are signed internally by ICE itself. For decades, courts have been clear that these documents do not authorize agents to enter private homes without consent. That principle is foundational to the Fourth Amendment. Yet under a new internal DHS memo, ICE agents have been instructed to treat these warrants as sufficient to enter homes after knocking and announcing, and to use force if refused entry.
When a federal judge in Minnesota ruled that one such forced entry violated the Constitution and ordered the individual’s release, ICE did not retreat. The man was detained again at a later check in. The message was unmistakable. Even when courts push back, enforcement continues. Once again, Minnesotans are confronted with images of ICE agents breaking down doors and pointing guns at people who reportedly have legal status, active asylum cases, and no history of violent crime, the very justification offered for these tactics.
The same pattern has played out in the streets. A federal judge attempted to curb ICE’s use of force against peaceful protesters and bystanders. The administration appealed. An appeals court paused those protections while the case proceeds. During that pause, agents resumed tactics many Minnesotans had hoped were no longer permitted.
This is how the law gets hollowed out. Not through open defiance, but through technical compliance paired with practical defiance. Court orders are followed narrowly, appealed immediately, and rendered toothless by delay. Rights still exist on paper, but they no longer reliably constrain power in practice.
Minnesotans recognized this early. Communities have organized protests, strikes, court watches, and mutual aid. Neighbors have shown up for one another in the streets and at front doors. Federal authorities underestimated this response. But they are also leaving behind something else. A blueprint.
If administrative warrants can be used this way here, they can be used this way anywhere. If temporary court protections can be neutralized through appeals, that tactic can be replicated. Minnesota is not just experiencing enforcement. It is being used to refine it.
What we are witnessing is not chaos. It is a deliberate strategy. And understanding that distinction matters, because you cannot fight what you refuse to name.
Straight From 
Sign up for our free daily newsletter.