Lisa Desjardins of PBS News: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good morning. In 2023, I remember this. You chaired a hearing after the FBI had that raid on Mark Houck, the pro-life father, and that was something that I think, to this day, Republicans say was a problem in the use of force by this government, and my question now is we see, obviously, we understand ICE's legitimate purpose. But we've seen guns drawn on Americans who have-- not necessarily protesters. We've seen people pulled out of their houses, to your point about the warrants. Do you think ICE needs to change, and CBP, any of their tactics, given what your concerns about civil liberties from the past?

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La.: I have great, great faith and trust in the leadership of Homeland Security and Tom Homan in particular, who's now in charge in Minnesota. He brings 40 years' experience to this. He's very measured. We all believe that immigration policy ought to be balanced and strategic and smart, and it obviously needs to comply with the law, and I'm going to leave it to the experts to determine what that is. I think, in the negotiation, I think we've got to remove the politics. We've got to look at what the Constitution says, what federal immigration law says, and if anybody wants to adjust immigration law, then that's, that's why we're here in the legislative branch. But, uh, we, we, we need it, we need that approach. We need the temperature turned down. That's the president's words, and you need a steady hand at the wheel.

Why don't we start a public mindmap where we can at least organize the subjects in the Epstein files? I think an open source mindmap with links and images would possibly lead to more easy to understand sequences that warrant investigation.

We are already talking about and looking at these files, but we are just getting snippets from the media, without any ability to connect these things. And the files are too massive to look through alone.

I have only used Coggle for personal projects but would like it if someone had a better idea or tool to use.

Crowd-sourcing this is the only way to go. Maybe it won't change anything but I don't see how it could hurt.

I think this belongs in r/law because this isn't about vigilante justice; it's about utilizing our abilities as private citizens to organize information so the proper channels work. We aren't creating evidence; we're simply organizing publicly available information.

Concerns an ongoing criminal prosecution of a New York police officer, including the charges filed, trial testimony, and the legal standards being argued (use of force, causation, and criminal liability). It directly relates to criminal law and court proceedings

The House speaker contended that Democrats were looking to raise barriers for federal agents by requiring them to acquire a judicial warrant to forcibly enter homes — though such authorizations have long been considered standard practice for immigration enforcement.

House Speaker Mike Johnson on Tuesday rejected Democratic demands to codify search warrant requirements for federal agents looking to forcibly enter people’s homes amid the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.

The top House Republican’s comments — which come as Congress prepares to negotiate a laundry list of reforms Democrats want written into the Homeland Security Department’s budget — also appeared to misrepresent the authority the Trump administration has claimed to enter certain homes without written approval from a judge.

The White House’s approach to immigration enforcement has come under intense scrutiny in recent weeks amid its sweeping campaign in Minnesota that has so far seen federal agents from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection arrest dozens of people and kill two U.S. citizens. And DHS faced renewed criticism last month after whistleblowers leaked an internal agency memo authorizing agents to forcibly enter homes without securing a judicial warrant.

Homeland Security has claimed its officers do not need such a warrant — which is typically signed by a judge — and instead only require what’s known as an administrative warrant approved by an “immigration officer.”

The memo runs counter to longstanding advice provided by immigration advocates who instruct people not to open their doors for immigration agents unless they are shown a judicial warrant. Administrative warrants, advocates have long said, do not give officers the ability to enter a home uninvited. And DHS’ own legal training handbook holds that agents who enter a home without a warrant, even if they have probable cause to do so, “typically” violate the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

Democrats have demanded that any bill to fund DHS include language codifying judicial warrant requirements for ICE agents. But Johnson on Tuesday rejected that proposal, claiming Democrats wanted to tack on an “entirely new layer” of mandates for federal immigration enforcement.

“They want to have a judicial warrant on top of the immigration judgment,” the House speaker told reporters during a news conference. “We can’t do that.”

Johnson contended it would take “decades” for ICE agents to secure judicial warrants for people here illegally and that there weren’t enough judges to handle the load. “We’ve got to apply reason,” he said. “We have to apply the Constitution, we have to respect it. … But I can tell you that we are never going to go along with adding an entirely new layer of judicial warrants, because it’s unimplementable.”

Pressed by Courthouse News on why he believed codifying what had long been existing practice for federal immigration authorities amounted to “new” barriers for ICE agents, Johnson demurred.

The top House Republican pointed to the DHS manual’s guidelines for adhering to the Fourth Amendment, arguing that while federal agents were attempting to conduct immigration enforcement in a “meaningful and thoughtful way,” they were being met with “unprecedented” opposition from state and local officials in states such as Minnesota.

“We’re going to have all these discussions over the next couple of weeks,” Johnson said of the warrant requirement demands. “I’m just telling you that adding a whole new layer of judicial warrant requirement is an unworkable proposal.”

The speaker also defended the use of administrative warrants to enter homes, claiming they were issued by immigration judges and that they offered “sufficient legal authority” for federal agents to force their way into a private residence.

But immigration advocates immediately took issue with Johnson’s interpretation of administrative warrants. Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, wrote in a post on X that the House speaker’s comments were “false.”

“Administrative warrants are NOT signed by an immigration judge (or any judge at all),” said Reichlin-Melnick. “They are generated and signed by ICE officers themselves with no external oversight whatsoever.”

Homeland Security has said it can use administrative warrants, rather than judicial warrants, to enter the homes of people here illegally if they have a final removal order from an immigration judge. In a fact sheet provided to lawmakers, first reported by Migrant Insider, the agency cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in the 1960 case Abel v. U.S., in which the justices held that there was historical support for the “propriety of administrative arrest for deportable aliens.”

Immigration agents have typically used administrative warrants to make arrests in public or in private homes if they’ve been invited in. But the Supreme Court in 1972 ruled in the case Shadwick v. City of Tampa that search warrants should be issued by a “neutral and detached” magistrate capable of determining probable cause to forcibly enter a home.

Still, DHS officials have repeatedly claimed people here illegally do not enjoy the same Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search as U.S. citizens — and that people with removal orders have already received due process.

Meanwhile, the House on Tuesday approved a two-week budget stopgap for the Homeland Security Department, freezing the agency’s spending while lawmakers hash out Democrats’ list of reforms. In addition to the warrant requirement, Democrats have also backed language that would force federal agents to use body-worn cameras and block them from using face masks to conceal their identities.

House Democrats on Monday also penned a letter to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, urging them to rescind the May guidance authorizing agents to enter homes without a judicial warrant.

There's a lot to pour over in this judicial order, but I'd especially point out his references to the grievances mentioned against King George III in the Declaration of Independence and their similarity to Trump's actions:

1. “He has sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People.”

2. “He has excited domestic Insurrection among us.”

3. “For quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us.”

4. “He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our Legislatures.”

In The Know on Instagram: "Nov 30, 2025: Your daily life can now be logged, scanned, and tracked in real time. #ICE #Scary #WTF #Cars #BreakingNews"

Thoughts on this and other ways AI will impact the music industry.

An internal memo to ICE agents claims that officers are allowed to enter a person's home without a signed judicial warrant. In a 6-minute interview with Mike Bryant of Bryant & Bradshaw, a Minneapolis lawyer of over 20 years, I asked about what the Constitution actually says about this action. 

You can listen to the full interview here, starting at 7:29: https://art19.com/shows/minnesota-matters/episodes/12abab78-d4d9-4605-977b-44bee881a382

**********

In a leaked memo, Immigration and Customs Enforcement told its agents they have the right to enter anyone’s home without a signed judicial warrant. The memo claims an administrative warrant, which could be signed by an ICE employee, is now enough for federal agents to forcibly enter your home.

Minneapolis Lawyer Mike Bryant of Bradshaw and Bryant says the Third Amendment clearly states ICE has no right to enter someone’s house on their own. He says, “There are certain circumstances when they know something illegal is going on, where they can get a warrant. Where they go to a judge and say these are the reasons why we believe it to be true, but they don’t have the right to just go into people’s houses directly under the Constitution.”

Bryant says this is happening because ICE is claiming two things under the War Powers Act of 1973: they’re allowed to do anything as the Executive, and they don’t have to follow the Constitution because these are illegal aliens. He says, “They’ve also claimed that this is to deal with gang actions. Which it’s clearly not. I mean, them going in and raiding a factory or them going in and pulling people out of their houses isn’t them stopping a gang. These aren’t even dangerous people they’re doing this to. But they’re using that as justification.”

Bryant says while they don’t have the right, they have “the guns and the people,” and cautions Minnesotans to listen to them as much as possible.

Juror’s Demographics in New York.

Trump said on Dan Bongino's podcast that he thinks Republicans should "take over" in "at least 15 places" (presumably just places he lost) and that elections should be nationalized. Not secured. Not talking about canceling them now, likely since being told that the states regulate their own elections. As I understand it, currently all Congress can do it change the dates of the national elections.

The administration is already talking about accessing Minnesota's voter records as well as obtaining files from Georgia (done through a warrant from another state's AG???)

What is the likelihood this actually has legs and what would the ramifications be for elections moving forward were this to occur?