The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), long seen as emblematic of dangerously expanding federal power, circulated a video clip asserting that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers enjoy “federal immunity” when performing their duties. Posted on Tuesday, the release comes amid widespread national attention and protests sparked by the fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good by ICE agent Jonathan Ross during an enforcement operation in Minneapolis on January 7. Good’s death has become a flashpoint in ongoing debates over immigration enforcement, federal use of force, and civil rights, with tens of thousands gathering in Minneapolis and rallies under the banner “ICE Out For Good” held in cities across the country in recent days.
The DHS reposted a clip of Stephen Miller, the White House chief of staff, delivering a message to ICE officers. Miller’s remarks carried a clear implication: Federal officers, he suggested, operate beyond the reach of state and local authority, and anyone who interferes commits a felony. That framing sits uneasily with constitutional text, legal precedent, and long-standing limits on federal power. While immigration enforcement is undeniably a federal responsibility, the Constitution does not grant federal officers blanket immunity from the law, nor does it erase the authority of state and local law enforcement, particularly that of elected sheriffs.
“Reminder”
In the clip, Miller delivered a blunt message to ICE officers. He framed it as both reassurance and warning at once. The language left little room for qualification:
To all ICE officers: You have federal immunity in the conduct of your duties. Anybody who lays a hand on you or tries to stop you or tries to obstruct you is committing a felony. You have immunity to perform your duties, and no one — no city official, no state official, no illegal alien, no leftist agitator or domestic insurrectionist — can prevent you from fulfilling your legal obligations and duties. The Department of Justice has made clear that if officials cross that line into obstruction, into criminal conspiracy against the United States or against ICE officers, then they will face justice.
Miller made the remarks during a period of intense tensions between federal immigration authorities and state and local officials in Illinois. At the time, DHS had launched Operation Midway Blitz, a large-scale enforcement campaign across the Chicago area beginning in early September 2025. The operation immediately triggered legal and political backlash.
That context matters, since the DHS’s “reminder” of the “federal immunity” coincided with active litigation challenging the legality of ICE’s conduct on the ground.
The Illinois Context
This Monday, the state of Illinois and the city of Chicago consolidated those disputes into a sweeping federal lawsuit against the DHS and senior ICE officials. The complaint spans 103 pages and accuses the administration of deploying what plaintiffs describe as unlawful and dangerous immigration enforcement tactics.
According to the filing, ICE agents conducted arrests without valid judicial warrants, detained individuals without probable cause, and carried out enforcement actions that violated both constitutional protections and long-standing federal court orders governing immigration arrests in the region. State and city officials characterized the federal presence as “coercive” and destabilizing. They argued that it bypassed established legal limits on federal law enforcement authority and violated the Tenth Amendment’s reservation of powers to the states.
DHS dismissed the lawsuit as “baseless.” Spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said the department was looking “forward to proving that in court.”
The Illinois complaint echoed earlier claims raised by civil-rights attorneys representing detainees. In separate federal filings, those attorneys alleged that ICE violated a binding consent decree that restricts when agents may conduct warrantless civil arrests. Those filings documented cases in which U.S. citizens and lawful residents were mistakenly detained, raising serious due-process concerns.
Suing separately is a group of journalists, news organizations, unions and protesters. They accused the federal government of violating the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Fourth Amendment’s ban on excessive force and unreasonable seizures, among other charges.
A judge in Chicago ruled that some of the arrests challenged in court were unlawful, finding that ICE failed to satisfy constitutional and procedural requirements. The court ordered detainees released and warned that continued violations could trigger further judicial oversight.
The Illinois litigation underscores the tension at the heart of DHS’s decision to resurface Miller’s remarks.
Hellbound and Down 