Trump officials believe law used to speed up deportations will also allow warrantless searches

Salon - Mar 20th, 2025

A recent report by the New York Times reveals that lawyers in President Donald Trump's Department of Justice assert federal agents can enter homes without a warrant under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. This controversial stance emerges amidst Trump's declaration of undocumented immigrants as a 'foreign invasion,' which he claims grants him extensive wartime powers. Although federal courts have blocked the use of this act to expedite deportations, the administration seeks to bypass such judicial orders, raising concerns about potential violations of Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The implications of this development are significant, as it poses a constitutional challenge to established legal norms. The Fourth Amendment generally requires a warrant to enter a home, but the use of administrative warrants by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents has already blurred these protections. The Trump administration's approach suggests a broader willingness to sidestep constitutional safeguards, as seen in instances like the arrest of Mahmoud Khalil for pro-Palestinian activism. This aggressive stance adds to fears of a constitutional crisis, with broader implications for civil liberties and the limits of presidential power in the U.S.

Donald Trump Immigration Department Of Justice Alien Enemies Act Fourth Amendment Warrantless Searches Constitutional Law

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

4.4

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article presents a critical perspective on the Trump administration's immigration policies, focusing on the use of the Alien Enemies Act and constitutional protections. While it addresses topics of significant public interest and potential controversy, the article's reliance on a single unnamed source and lack of balanced viewpoints detract from its overall credibility. The informal tone and charged language may engage readers but could also limit its accessibility and perceived neutrality.

To improve its quality, the article should incorporate diverse perspectives, authoritative sources, and clearer citations to enhance its accuracy, balance, and transparency. By providing a more comprehensive analysis, the article could better inform readers and contribute to meaningful discussions on the important issues it raises.

Accuracy

The article makes several claims that require careful verification. For instance, it asserts that lawyers in President Donald Trump's Department of Justice believe federal agents can enter homes without a warrant under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. This claim needs verification through official DOJ statements or legal documents. The article also mentions that the use of the act to speed deportations has been blocked by federal courts, which should be cross-referenced with court rulings. Additionally, the claim that the Trump administration has not indicated plans to do away with warrants entirely contradicts the earlier assertion of warrantless searches, requiring clarification.

The statement about Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents using administrative warrants to circumvent Fourth Amendment protections needs factual backing, ideally through legal analyses or case studies. Furthermore, the article references the arrest of Mahmoud Khalil as evidence of the administration's disregard for constitutional protections, which should be supported by specific legal documentation or case details. Overall, while the article presents potentially factual claims, it lacks direct citations or evidence, which affects its verifiability.

Balance

The article appears to have a strong bias against the Trump administration, particularly in its handling of immigration policies. It uses loaded language, such as "frightening willingness" and "revenge agenda," indicating a lack of neutrality. The piece predominantly highlights negative aspects of the administration's actions without presenting counterarguments or perspectives from supporters of the policies.

The article does not provide viewpoints from legal experts or government officials who might justify or explain the rationale behind the administration's actions. This omission contributes to an imbalanced presentation, as it does not offer a comprehensive view of the issue. Including perspectives from both sides would enhance the article's balance and provide readers with a more nuanced understanding of the topic.

Clarity

The article is generally clear in its language and structure, making it relatively easy to follow. It presents its main points in a logical sequence, beginning with a critique of conservative originalists and transitioning into specific claims about the Trump administration's actions. The use of subheadings and related links helps organize the content and guide the reader through the narrative.

However, the article's tone is somewhat informal and opinionated, which may detract from its clarity and perceived neutrality. Phrases like "vibes and a Ouija board" introduce a colloquial and sarcastic tone that could confuse readers about the seriousness of the claims. Maintaining a more formal and neutral tone would improve the article's clarity and enhance its credibility.

Source quality

The article references a report by the New York Times as its primary source but does not provide direct quotes or links to this report, reducing its credibility. Additionally, it lacks citations from legal experts, government officials, or other authoritative sources that could substantiate its claims. This reliance on a single, unnamed source without attribution weakens the article's reliability.

The absence of diverse sources and expert opinions limits the article's authority. To improve source quality, the piece should include references to legal documents, statements from the Department of Justice, or insights from constitutional law scholars. This would provide a stronger foundation for the article's assertions and enhance its overall credibility.

Transparency

The article provides limited transparency regarding its sources and the basis for its claims. It mentions a New York Times report but does not link to it or provide specific details, which obscures the origin of the information. Additionally, the article does not disclose the methodology used to gather its information or the potential biases of its sources.

The lack of context regarding the legal interpretations of the Alien Enemies Act and the Fourth Amendment protections further diminishes transparency. Readers are left without a clear understanding of how the article's conclusions were reached. To enhance transparency, the article should include detailed citations, explain the legal context, and disclose any potential conflicts of interest affecting its reporting.