Looking at ICE's Evil Leadership
A clear-eyed look at ICE "Czar" Tom Homan and the agency's blatant refusal to follow constitutional protections.
By Harry Litman Talking Feds
In recent weeks, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency has become the most dangerous enforcement body in the United States, and the immigration “czar,” Tom Homan, the most dangerous public official save only Donald Trump.
Hordes of ICE agents—masked and menacing—have been sweeping into communities, roughing up immigrants and citizens alike, ignoring constitutional limits, and creating indelible images of the sort we typically observe only in the worst totalitarian states.
Atop this rogue organization sits Homan, a perennial apologist for ICE’s legal abuses, who has been feeding the American public a steady diet of bad law and inflammatory rhetoric since 2017.
Homan has presided over ICE’s transformation from a regulatory agency into something more like a rogue militia. For years, he has defended the thuggish tactics of ICE agents with a smirk and a shrug. If you want to understand the culture of ICE today—its contempt for legal norms and its disdain for the rights of immigrants and citizens alike—start with Homan.
No need for probable cause. Consider the now-infamous July 2019 Nashville driveway standoff. ICE agents, acting on an administrative warrant, surrounded a van containing a father and his young son.
No criminal charges were filed, no contraband was found, and the only “offense” appeared to be that the man looked Hispanic. Homan later defended agents’ tactics, insisting they didn’t need probable cause. “They just need totality of the circumstances,” he explained. “Based on the location, the occupation, their physical appearance, their actions.”
That claim is dangerously ignorant—and a license for unconstitutional racial profiling.
And it’s part of a pattern. In 2017 and 2018, ICE launched home raids without judicial warrants, relying instead on flimsy administrative papers or outright coercion (agents often gained entry under false pretenses). Then came the prolonged detentions between 2018 and 2020, when ICE held non-citizens for months without bond hearings, violating basic due process principles.
Most recently, ICE descended on two cannabis farms in Ventura County, California, arresting roughly 200–300 people. At least four were U.S. citizens.
One was George Retes, a disabled veteran who disappeared into ICE custody for several days; eyewitnesses say he was simply reversing his vehicle. ICE agents broke the window of his moving car, pepper-sprayed him, dragged him out, and kept him incognito for days.
Homan again took to the airwaves with the same canard about agents not needing probable cause:
“Look, people need to understand, ICE officers and Border Patrol don’t need probable cause to walk up to somebody, briefly detain them, and question them. They just need totality of the circumstances… location, occupation, physical appearance, actions.”
Walmart security guards. Despite Homan’s swagger, he is bluffing.
In the first place, while Homan talks tough, ICE agents serving administrative warrants, which is their typical practice, are not the legal equivalent of law enforcement officers serving judicial warrants. In essence, they possess no more arrest power than a Walmart security guard.
More important, in the absence of probable cause to believe they are confronting an illegal alien, their legal ability to stop anyone is strictly limited.
They must have reasonable suspicion that the person is here illegally, and that must be based on specific, articulable facts that apply to the person in particular. And the stop must be brief and minimally intrusive. Even a weapons pat-down is forbidden in the absence of a reasonable belief that the person is armed and dangerous.
In recent months, ICE agents have routinely been violating every one of these constitutional constraints.
What ICE has been doing, and Homan defending, are stops (or outright arrests) based on traits that do not uniquely identify undocumented immigrants: language spoken, physical appearance, or presence in immigrant-dense areas. That is why U.S. citizens keep getting swept into these dragnets.
Worse still, Homan’s ICE doesn’t conduct mere Terry stops. They smash windows, drag people out violently, and make full-blown arrests—often of innocent individuals and with no probable cause.
The courts step in. Courts have noticed. After last week’s Ventura County raid, U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong issued an emergency injunction forbidding ICE from using race, language, or occupation as triggers for enforcement:
“There is a mountain of evidence… that the federal government committed the violations alleged… The temporary injunction prohibits federal use of race, language, or occupation as the sole bases for immigration suspicion.”
Yet Homan didn’t blink. Asked about the ruling, he doubled down: “ICE officers don’t need probable cause… They just need totality of the circumstances—location, occupation, appearance.”
Homan’s loud, legally hollow rhetoric matches his swaggering persona. Over the weekend, when a heckler in “Ultra MAGA” gear shouted a question, Homan snarled:
“You’re such a bada**? Meet me offstage in 13 minutes and 50 seconds… guarantee you he sits down to pee. Guaranteed.”
What kind of federal law enforcement officer talks like a schoolyard meathead? What democratic society tolerates the brutal thuggery of these ICE raids?
Laughable - and dangerous. Homan is an unrepentant bully—the purest form of law enforcement arrogance. He wears judicial rebukes like merit badges and uses every microphone he’s handed to justify ICE overreach.
His contempt for constitutional limits would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous, and it permeates an agency increasingly untethered from the rule of law.
What ICE has become—under Homan’s influence—is perhaps the closest thing the United States has seen to a rogue enforcement agency. It operates by its own rules, with minimal oversight and a deeply ingrained hostility to constitutional constraints.
ICE must be reined in—not only for the sake of immigrants, but for the rule of law itself.
When Tom Homan says officers can detain anyone based on “totality of the circumstances,” he isn’t just green-lighting racial profiling; he’s laying out a roadmap for dismantling constitutional protections for everyone, including American citizens.
This isn’t only about broken windows and broken bodies. It’s about a broken system—one that needs more than reform. It needs a reckoning, and a sane, law-abiding, Constitution-respecting leader at the top.
Guaranteed.
Harry Litman is a former U.S. Attorney and Deputy Assistant Attorney General. Subscribe to his “Talking Feds” newsletter here.
Image: Tom Homan photo illustration by Wall Street Journal.
I asked Grok about the issue on ICE agents ability to stop and arrest.
1. ICE Agents’ Authority and Administrative Warrants. The comparison of ICE agents serving administrative warrants to a "Walmart security guard" is inaccurate and misleading. ICE agents, as federal officers, derive their authority from the INA, specifically 8 U.S.C. § 1357, which grants them specific powers to enforce immigration laws. These powers include the ability to interrogate, detain, and arrest individuals believed to be in violation of immigration laws, without necessarily requiring a judicial warrant.Administrative vs. Judicial Warrants: ICE typically uses administrative warrants (issued by ICE itself, not a judge) for immigration enforcement actions, such as deportations. These warrants are distinct from judicial warrants, which are issued by a court and typically required for criminal arrests under the Fourth Amendment. However, the INA explicitly authorizes ICE agents to arrest individuals for immigration violations without a judicial warrant in certain circumstances 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2). For example, ICE agents can arrest without a warrant if they have "reason to believe" (equivalent to probable cause) that a person is unlawfully present and likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained.
Comparison to a Walmart Security Guard: Unlike a private security guard, ICE agents are federal officers with statutory authority to enforce federal law. A Walmart security guard has no inherent legal authority to detain or arrest beyond a citizen’s arrest (which is limited and varies by state). ICE agents, by contrast, have specific federal powers to detain and arrest for immigration violations, making the comparison inapt.
2. Legal Standard for Stops: Reasonable SuspicionThe statement is correct that ICE agents must have reasonable suspicion based on "specific, articulable facts" to stop an individual suspected of being unlawfully present in the U.S. This standard comes from Fourth Amendment case law, particularly Terry v. Ohio (1968), which applies to brief investigatory stops by law enforcement, including ICE agents.Reasonable Suspicion for Immigration Stops: ICE agents may briefly detain an individual if they have reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present. This must be based on specific facts, such as behavior, statements, or other indicators (e.g., lack of documentation, admission of unlawful status, or information from databases). For example, in United States v. Brignoni-Ponce (1975), the Supreme Court held that Border Patrol agents (whose authority is similar to ICE’s) could not stop vehicles near the border based solely on ethnicity; they needed specific facts supporting reasonable suspicion of immigration violations.
Brief and Minimally Intrusive: The statement is correct that such stops must be brief and minimally intrusive, consistent with Terry. The purpose of the stop is to confirm or dispel the suspicion of unlawful presence, often through questioning or checking immigration status. Prolonged detention without probable cause could violate the Fourth Amendment.
3. Arrest Authority: Probable CauseFor an arrest (as opposed to a brief stop), ICE agents generally need probable cause to believe an individual is unlawfully present, as outlined in 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2). This is a higher standard than reasonable suspicion but does not necessarily require a judicial warrant for immigration arrests. If an ICE agent has probable cause and believes the individual may flee, they can arrest immediately without a warrant. However, for planned arrests (e.g., at a residence), ICE typically obtains an administrative warrant, which is issued internally based on immigration records or other evidence.4. Weapons Pat-DownThe statement is accurate that a weapons pat-down (a Terry frisk) is permitted only if the ICE agent has a reasonable belief that the individual is armed and dangerous. This is consistent with Terry v. Ohio and applies to all law enforcement officers, including ICE agents. Without specific facts suggesting a threat, a pat-down would be unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.5. Limitations on ICE AuthorityWhile ICE agents have significant authority under the INA, there are limits:Fourth Amendment Protections: Stops and arrests must comply with constitutional standards. Random or arbitrary stops without reasonable suspicion, or arrests without probable cause, can be challenged as unlawful.
Ethnicity-Based Enforcement: Courts have consistently ruled that ICE or Border Patrol cannot rely solely on ethnicity or appearance to establish reasonable suspicion (United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 1975; United States v. Montero-Camargo, 2000).
State and Local Laws: ICE agents’ authority is federal, and they cannot enforce state or local laws unless specifically authorized (e.g., through a 287(g) agreement with local law enforcement).
6. Context of ICE OperationsThe statement references "Homan" (likely Thomas Homan, former ICE Director), suggesting a tough enforcement stance. While ICE’s rhetoric under certain administrations emphasizes aggressive enforcement, their legal authority remains constrained by the INA and the Constitution. For example:ICE agents often rely on databases, tips, or encounters (e.g., during workplace raids or traffic stops with local law enforcement) to establish reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
Administrative warrants do not grant ICE agents the same authority as judicial warrants to enter private homes without consent (see General v. City of New York, 2020, for related principles). They must obtain consent or a judicial warrant to enter non-public areas unless exigent circumstances exist.
ConclusionThe statement is partially accurate but oversimplifies ICE agents’ authority by comparing them to private security guards, which is misleading. ICE agents have significant statutory powers under the INA to stop, detain, and arrest individuals for immigration violations, but these actions must comply with Fourth Amendment standards (reasonable suspicion for stops, probable cause for arrests). The requirement for specific, articulable facts and the prohibition on weapons pat-downs without a reasonable belief in danger are correct. However, ICE agents’ authority far exceeds that of a private security guard, as they are federal officers with specific enforcement powers under federal law.If you need further clarification or want me to analyze specific cases, statutes, or real-time information (e.g., via web search or X posts), let me know!
Horrific.
Thank you for bringing these abominations to light.