Explain Like I'm Five

It isn’t legal. And they haven’t changed the law. It’s just now their policy to ignore the law.

Right now they’re trying to “shock and awe” everyone into submission and compliance before the law catches up with them.

You can tell them to piss off but they can beat and/or kill you and get away with it so words arent really gonna have much stopping power in this case.

We live in a society where might = right. If you have the firepower or other means to stop them from entering your private space then you have the right to do so. 

It isn't legal, and the Constitution expliclty forbids this.

Welcome to fascism, did you think for some reason ... words written on paper would... restrain them or matter in anyway?

They are fascists.

Their whole thing is ... truth doesn't exist, language is a weapon, not a means of reaching a mutual understanding.

They only understand one thing, and that is violent force, and the physical and societal logistics that make it possible.

If your game plan for resisting fascists is 'but that's illegal!', you've already lost.

It's not legal. But the law is a piece of paper and a gun is a gun.

The rule of law has ceased to exist in the US. It has been replaced by the rule of power.

You either get used to no longer have rights, or you can start to get them back.

it is very much unconstitutional and definitely illegal. but you would need a functioning congress and a supreme court to rule on it or whatever

Legal Answer

The Fourth Amendment specifically says the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" without a warrant showing probable cause and due process. It is settled law in the court system that this means a judicially-reviewed and -signed warrant is required to enter a home.

Basically, the Trump administration issued a May 12, 2025 DHS memo (signed by Todd Lyons) saying that no, the "warrant" and "due process" clause is satisfied if the DHS issues its own warrant.

This obviously violates the constitution because then judicial branch is meant to check the executive branch via review of executive action. DHS signing their own warrants means they are acting with inherent biased towards their own personnel, so there is no meaningful due process. It's literally the law enforcement arm also being the judge.

A more detailed legal answer to your question is here: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/can-ice-enter-a-home-to-make-an-arrest-with-only-an-administrative-warrant , and it also links to the whistleblower complaint, which itself has the DHS May 12, 2025 memo as Exhibit 1 (page 17 of the file).

The DHS memo doesn't appear to cite any actual case law (except a footnote that references a Central District of California case that "judicial" warrants are required in that jurisdiction, tellingly), but the link above notes the law is so clear that, to find an explanation, it theorizes that they are relying on dicta (non-binding, non-precedential discussion) in a court opinion from a 1960 case, that suggests (but again, doesn't legally bind) administrative warrants could be considered. That dicta doesn't hold they are valid, and has been contradicted by the Supreme Court multiple times since 1960.

Practical Answer

In short, the Trump administration likely knows this is a completely unconstitutional position. However, they also know it takes time for court challenges to force them to take any action (violate the constitution->victims possibly find counsel->file papers->trial court delays->trial->multiple appeals->Supreme Court).

Therefore, they are openly violating the law. We can't prove their goals, but it seems obvious that Trump and his chief advisor, Stephen Miller are looking for an excuse to declare martial law. By illegally killing, kidnapping and abusing American citizens and residents, they assume the backlash will give them an excuse.

If it doesn't, they will continue and assume that they will either be saved by the extremely right-leaning Supreme Court, or if not, will still have normalized a US gestapo acting with impunity for enough time to scare into silence any meaningful criticism, stop elections, or will simply "comply" with the decision two+ years from now continuing the process with minor changes to the policy that remain unconstitutional but restart the court process.

As Pompey said, "Cease quoting laws to us that have swords."

It doesn't matter what the constitution says when the government chooses to ignore it.

The Constitution is a piece of paper with words on it that no one pays attention to any longer.

It doesn’t matter whether it’s illegal. If you don’t have rule of law, which is the reality that MAGA has us living in, then all that matters is if you can get away with it. If you can’t or won’t be held to account, then there is no law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception

We have ceded civil liberties when within 100 miles of a boarder, this happened decades ago and most politicians were ok with it because it didn't make the news.. just a quiet tool in the toolbox....

Well, the tool is now being used

Laws only work if there is a penalty for breaking them. Example: it is against the law not to release the Epstien files ... but what is the penalty for breaking that law? Nothing was written in. The same for ICE, no one is checking them and they are staying out of Castle Law states.

You guys haven't really had rights for a while, by the sounds of it.

“Instead, the disclosure claims that the memo was rolled out in a secretive manner in which some agents were verbally briefed while others were allowed to view it but not keep a copy,” Blumenthal said. “It was reportedly clear that anyone who openly spoke out against this new directive would be fired.”

Seems like they know it's not

Laws only work one way now.

The main question is how legal would it be to shoot at masked armed gang breaking into your home to kidnap you and your family without any judicial warrant.

Because that is exactly what the 2nd amendment is for

The law only exists so far as it is enforced. Who will enforce the law against the state? Political power grows out the barrel of a gun.

If someone was in the process of actively murdering me, I would think it safe to assume they are aware that murder is illegal. If I tell them it's illegal, they're probably more likely to double down and make sure I'm dead so that I can't be a witness.

It says ICE agents are allowed to forcibly enter a person’s home using an administrative warrant if a judge has issued a “final order of removal.” Administrative warrants permit officers and agents to make arrests and are different from judicial warrants, which judges or magistrates sign allowing entry into homes.

It’s basically a new legal theory (like the bush torture memos you can just make them up) and they’re claiming the preexisting administrative warrant is good enough

The world champions of mass shootings and gun hoarding in case of a corrupt government: whatever can we do? Is this legal?

Just when these American citizens needed their rights the most...their government took them away. and rights aren't rights if someone can take em away. They're priveledges. That's all we've ever had in this country is a bill of TEMPORARY priviledges; and if you read the news, even badly, you know the list get's shorter, and shorter, and shorter.

There’s a longer version of this great routine by George Carlin, as well as recordings from live shows. I highly recommend reading the whole thing - it helps put a lot of this into perspective.

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1242679-boy-everyone-in-this-country-is-running-around-yammering-about

It's illegal as fuck.

The law is only the law insofar as it is enforcible.

You're forgetting the "Nobody is going to stop me" exemption. The constitution is just a piece of paper if nobody is willing to defend it.

If they don’t respect the 4th amendment they get the second amendment