Investigating ICE Violence: A 120th Congress Oversight Plan
Investigating Immigration Enforcement Violence: A Lawful Oversight Plan for the 120th Congress
By Corey J. Biazzo, Esq., Biazzo Law Government Oversight Program · November 12, 2026
In short: Since 2025, large federal immigration operations in Chicago, Minneapolis–Saint Paul, Charlotte, and other communities have produced shootings, injuries, and arrests of U.S. citizens. Federal judges have found violations of court orders and the Fourth Amendment. Video and other evidence has contradicted official accounts. And state investigators say they were shut out of the evidence. When any government agent can use force without a transparent, independent review, every American's safety is at risk. Congress has the constitutional authority, and the legislative purpose, to investigate. This guide gives the 120th Congress a lawful, step-by-step plan: preserve the evidence, request and subpoena documents, video, and testimony, protect witnesses and pending prosecutions, work with state and local governments, and write laws that apply to every administration.
Key fact | Detail |
Operations reviewed | Midway Blitz (Chicago area, from Sept. 2025); Charlotte's Web (Charlotte, Nov. 2025); Metro Surge (Minneapolis–Saint Paul, Dec. 2025–Feb. 2026); others tracked in Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Memphis, New Orleans, and Maine |
U.S. citizens killed in Minneapolis | Renee Good (Jan. 7, 2026) and Alex Pretti (Jan. 24, 2026) |
Court findings (examples) | ICE violated at least 96 court orders in Minnesota in January 2026 (Chief Judge Schiltz); a forced home entry violated the Fourth Amendment (Judge Bryan); a restraining order limited force against journalists and peaceful protesters in Chicago (Judge Ellis) |
Evidence disputes | Minnesota sued DOJ and DHS (No. 1:26-cv-01007, D.D.C.) alleging state investigators were excluded from evidence and scenes |
Pattern of disputed accounts | Reuters identified six incidents in which officials' initial statements were contradicted by video, court records, or medical findings |
Internal data | DHS emails obtained by American Oversight show ICE use of force rose sharply in early 2025 |
State prosecution | Hennepin County charged an ICE agent in the Sosa-Celis shooting (May 2026) |
What Congress can do | Investigate, subpoena, legislate, condition funding, and support state and local investigations |
Allegations described here are allegations unless a court has found otherwise. Everyone named is presumed innocent.
What does the public record show?
Congress should start where any careful investigator starts: with what is already documented. The categories below come from court records, government documents, and published investigations. They are a starting point for questions, not conclusions.
Operations. Operation Midway Blitz began in the Chicago area in September 2025, led by ICE with Border Patrol and other federal agencies. Operation Charlotte's Web brought federal agents to Charlotte, North Carolina, in November 2025; local reporting counted more than 425 arrests within days. DHS called Operation Metro Surge in Minneapolis–Saint Paul (December 2025 to February 2026) "the largest immigration enforcement operation ever carried out," with at least 2,000 ICE and 1,000 CBP officers by late January. The Immigrant Legal Resource Center tracks similar operations in Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Memphis, New Orleans, Portland (Oregon), and Maine.
Deaths and injuries. In Minneapolis, ICE officer Jonathan Ross fatally shot Renee Good, 37, in her car on January 7, 2026. On January 24, CBP officers shot and killed Alex Pretti, 37, an intensive-care nurse at the Minneapolis VA; bystander video reviewed by news organizations reportedly showed him holding a phone, not a gun. On January 14, ICE agents shot Julio Sosa-Celis; Hennepin County later charged an ICE agent, and federal charges against Sosa-Celis were dismissed. In the Chicago area, agents fatally shot Silverio Villegas González during a September 2025 vehicle stop and shot Marimar Martinez in October 2025; in both cases, community accounts and reported body-camera footage disputed DHS's descriptions. A Minnesota nurse has sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging agents pulled her from her car during Metro Surge without identifying themselves; DHS disputes her account.
Court findings. Federal judges have found, among other things, that:
ICE violated at least 96 court orders in Minnesota since January 1, 2026 (Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz, Jan. 28, 2026);
a forced home entry was a warrantless search violating the Fourth Amendment (Judge Jeffrey Bryan, Jan. 15, 2026);
ICE made warrantless arrests in violation of a consent decree in the Chicago area (Castañon Nava v. DHS, Judge Jeffrey Cummings); and
agents should be restricted from using tear gas and other weapons against journalists and peaceful protesters, must wear visible identification, and must use body cameras (Chicago Headline Club v. Noem, Judge Sara Ellis, October 2025). The judge later found that a senior Border Patrol official had lied under oath.
Some of these rulings were later stayed or appealed. Committees should confirm the current status of each.
Disputed official accounts. In January 2026, Reuters reviewed six violent encounters in Minneapolis, Chicago, and Texas and found that officials' early statements were later contradicted by video, court records, or medical examiner reports. Internal DHS emails obtained by American Oversight show that ICE's use of force rose 353 percent in the first two months of the administration, and that the official overseeing field operations was told in March 2025 that force was up nearly four-fold from the prior year.
Evidence and accountability gaps. State investigators were denied access to the Good and Pretti shooting scenes. In March 2026, Minnesota and local officials sued DOJ and DHS, alleging the agencies excluded state investigators from evidence and interviews; Minnesota later said evidence sharing that began in July was paused indefinitely on September 10. DHS largely eliminated its Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties in March 2025, and the ACLU reported filing 54 Federal Tort Claims Act claims in 2026, involving 32 U.S. citizens.
The Department of Homeland Security has defended its officers in many of these incidents and disputes several of these accounts. Those disputes are exactly why an independent, transparent record is needed.
Does Congress have the authority to investigate this?
Yes. The Supreme Court has long held that the power to investigate, "with process to enforce it," is an essential auxiliary of Congress's legislative power (McGrain v. Daugherty, 1927). Congress created DHS, ICE, and CBP; it defines their arrest powers (8 U.S.C. § 1357); it funds them every year; and it writes the civil rights and tort laws that govern their conduct. Few subjects fall more squarely within Congress's legislative authority.
The limits matter too. An inquiry "must be related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of the Congress"; Congress has no power to expose people for the sake of exposure; and it is not "a law enforcement or trial agency" (Watkins v. United States, 1957). The fix is simple: write the legislative purpose down before the first subpoena, and tie each request to it.
What is the legislative purpose?
A committee resolution or chair's memorandum opening the inquiry should identify the specific laws and funding decisions it will inform. For this inquiry, they include:
Legislative subject | Questions the record must answer |
DHS appropriations (FY2027, FY2028) | How were funds for these operations spent? Should funding be conditioned on body cameras, identification, use-of-force reporting, or evidence sharing? |
Arrest and warrant authority (8 U.S.C. § 1357) | How are warrantless arrests, home entries, vehicle stops, and "collateral" arrests being conducted, and do they comply with the statute and the Fourth Amendment? |
Use-of-force standards | Do DHS policies, training, and supervision match federal standards, and were they followed? |
Evidence preservation and sharing | How does DHS preserve video and physical evidence, and when does it share it with state and local investigators? |
Civil remedies | Do the Federal Tort Claims Act and other remedies give injured people a meaningful path to compensation, given that no statute creates a damages action against individual federal officers comparable to 42 U.S.C. § 1983? |
Internal oversight | What happened to DHS's Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and its pending complaints? Are inspectors general adequately resourced? |
Compliance with court orders | Why were court orders violated, and what systems would prevent it? |
Public statements | Did official statements match the information available at the time, and what rules should govern them? |
Which committees have jurisdiction?
In the House, the Committees on Homeland Security, the Judiciary, Oversight and Government Reform, and the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security. In the Senate, the Committees on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the Judiciary, and the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security. Joint letters and coordinated document requests across committees reduce duplication and strengthen the record. Confirm each committee's jurisdiction and subpoena rules for the 120th Congress once the House and Senate adopt their rules in January.
The investigative plan
Phase | Timing | Key actions |
0. Prepare | Now to Jan. 3, 2027 | Compile the public record: court filings, inspector general reports, FOIA productions, and published investigations. Identify witnesses and records. Contact state attorneys general, county prosecutors, and city attorneys in affected areas. Draft the legislative-purpose memorandum. |
1. Preserve and organize | January 2027 | Adopt the inquiry's purpose and scope. Send preservation letters. Ask the DHS and DOJ inspectors general and GAO what reviews are open and request new ones where needed. |
2. Request voluntarily | February to April 2027 | Send written document requests with reasonable deadlines. Request briefings and transcribed interviews. Hold field hearings in affected communities. |
3. Compel where necessary | April to July 2027 | Issue subpoenas for documents, video, and testimony that were refused or delayed. Hold public hearings. |
4. Legislate | Summer to fall 2027 | Issue an interim report with legislative findings. Introduce and mark up bills. Write conditions into the FY2028 DHS appropriations bill. |
5. Report and refer | 2028 | Issue a final report. Make referrals to inspectors general, prosecutors, or professional-licensing bodies where the evidence supports it. Consider other constitutional remedies for civil officers where warranted. |
Step 1: Preservation letters
Send them in the first weeks of January to DHS, ICE, CBP, DOJ, the FBI, and the U.S. Marshals Service, and to contractors that hold relevant data. Ask recipients to preserve, and suspend any deletion of:
body-worn and vehicle camera footage, with metadata, upload logs, and retention settings;
radio, dispatch, and aircraft recordings;
emails, texts, and messages on official and personal devices and accounts, including encrypted or auto-deleting apps;
operational plans, orders, and after-action reports for each named operation;
use-of-force reports, internal reviews, and evidence inventories with chain-of-custody records; and
records of decisions to share, pause, or withhold evidence from state and local investigators.
Step 2: Documents, photos, and video to request
Category | Examples | Legislative purpose served |
Video and images | Body-worn and dash camera footage, surveillance video, photos taken by agents, and any footage obtained from the public, for each shooting and major use-of-force incident | Use-of-force standards; body-camera requirements; evidence preservation |
Use-of-force records | Incident reports, Office of Professional Responsibility reviews, use-of-force review board findings, and medical-response logs | Use-of-force standards; internal oversight |
Operational records | Plans, orders, staffing, rules of engagement, and briefing materials for each operation | Arrest authority; appropriations |
Policies and training | Use-of-force policy, crowd-control and chemical-agent guidance, warrant and home-entry policies, including the May 2025 forcible-entry policy and January 2026 "likely to escape" guidance | Arrest and warrant authority |
Arrest and detention data | Arrests by operation, citizenship status, warrant type, and criminal history; detentions of U.S. citizens; release records | Arrest authority; civil remedies |
Court-order compliance | Records of how orders were communicated to agents and why they were violated | Compliance with court orders |
Evidence-sharing decisions | Communications about cooperation with Minnesota and other states, including the decision to pause sharing on September 10, 2026 | Evidence sharing |
Public statements | Drafts of statements after each incident and the information available when they were issued | Public statements |
Civil rights oversight | Records of the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties reduction and its pending complaints | Internal oversight |
Step 3: Witnesses
Witness group | What they can establish | Cautions |
People harmed, families, and eyewitnesses | What happened, in their own words | Coordinate with their counsel; avoid prejudicing their civil cases |
State and local investigators, prosecutors, police chiefs, and medical examiners | Evidence access, scene control, cooperation, forensic findings | Do not interfere with pending state prosecutions |
Career DHS and DOJ officials | Policies, training, evidence handling, internal reviews, and decisions to pursue or decline charges | Protect whistleblowers; see our whistleblower guide |
Operation commanders and supervisors | Orders, tactics, and supervision | Former officials can be subpoenaed like other private citizens; courts have rejected absolute testimonial immunity even for senior White House advisers |
Senior DHS and White House officials | Policy decisions, public statements, and evidence-sharing decisions | Expect privilege claims; see our Stephen Miller and subpoena guides |
Agents who used force | Their own conduct | They may invoke the Fifth Amendment, and some face criminal cases; see guardrails below |
Step 4: Subpoenas
Issue subpoenas only after voluntary requests are refused or ignored, and document every step. Agency records are not a President's personal papers, so the Mazars test generally does not apply, but committees should still state the purpose, keep requests narrow, and offer accommodations such as rolling production and in-camera review. Our subpoena enforcement playbook explains enforcement options if the Justice Department declines to act.
Guardrails: an investigation that holds up
An investigation into due-process violations must itself respect due process. These guardrails protect the people involved and make the record credible to the public and the courts.
Presume innocence. Describe incidents as allegations until a court or the evidence establishes the facts. Give agencies and individual officers a fair opportunity to respond, and put evidence that supports them in the record too.
Do not jeopardize prosecutions. Several matters, including state charges against an ICE agent in Minnesota, are pending. Coordinate timing with state and federal prosecutors. Be very cautious about granting witnesses immunity (18 U.S.C. §§ 6002, 6005): the Iran-Contra convictions of Oliver North and John Poindexter were overturned because of the immunized testimony they gave to Congress.
Respect the Fifth Amendment. Witnesses, including agents, may decline to answer questions that could incriminate them. Do not compel testimony from a witness simply to have them invoke the privilege publicly.
Protect privacy and safety. Victims, arrestees, bystanders, and officers have privacy and safety interests. Redact home addresses and personal identifiers; do not publish information that could expose any person, including an officer, to harassment or harm.
Handle sensitive information properly. Law-enforcement-sensitive and classified material should be reviewed in appropriate settings. Grand jury material is governed by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e).
Protect witnesses from retaliation. Use the steps in our whistleblower guide, and document and refer any interference (18 U.S.C. §§ 1505, 1512).
Respect the minority. Share documents with minority members, and give them time to question witnesses.
Write laws for offices, not people. Legislation must regulate agencies and conduct, not single out named individuals for punishment (United States v. Lovett, 1946).
How can Congress work with state and local governments?
States and localities have their own police powers, their own prosecutors, and often their own evidence. Congress cannot direct a state prosecution, but it can partner with state and local officials and change federal law so they can do their jobs.
What committees can do now:
Hold field hearings in affected communities, with testimony from state attorneys general, county prosecutors, police chiefs, medical examiners, school officials, and residents.
Invite state and local records voluntarily. Local police reports, 911 and dispatch recordings, scene photographs, and medical examiner findings can corroborate or contradict federal accounts.
Document the evidence-sharing dispute. Minnesota's lawsuit alleges DOJ and DHS excluded state investigators, reversed earlier cooperation, and failed to act on requests under the agencies' own Touhy regulations. Congress can obtain the federal side of that record directly.
Respect the line between oversight and prosecution. Committees should coordinate with state prosecutors about timing and should not release material in a way that could compromise a pending case.
Fill the data gap. The federal government does not report ICE arrests by city or neighborhood. Committees can request that data and work with local governments to understand community effects, such as the Urban Institute study of Charlotte families one year after Operation Charlotte's Web.
What Congress can change by law:
Require cooperation in serious-incident investigations. When a federal immigration officer's use of force causes death or serious injury, require DHS to preserve all evidence, give state and local investigators timely scene access, and share evidence, with written, case-specific reasons for any withholding.
Clarify federal immunity. Federal officers charged under state law can raise Supremacy Clause immunity, a doctrine traced to In re Neagle (1890), and can remove cases to federal court (28 U.S.C. § 1442). The doctrine protects acts that are authorized by federal law and "necessary and proper" to federal duties. Congress could legislate how federal use-of-force and warrant standards bear on that question, so that conduct violating federal law is not treated as authorized. This is a contested proposal that would be tested in court, and it should be written to respect officers' legitimate federal duties.
Fund local capacity. Grants can support independent investigations, forensic capacity, and victim services in communities affected by large federal operations.
Set rules for joint operations. Require written agreements, reporting, and civil rights safeguards when local police participate in federal immigration enforcement.
What laws could prevent this from happening again?
The goal is not to stop lawful immigration enforcement. It is to make sure every federal officer, under every administration, operates under clear rules, with transparency, and with real consequences for violating the law. Clear rules protect officers too.
Reform | What it would do |
Body cameras and evidence retention | Require body-worn cameras during enforcement actions, set minimum retention periods, and penalize unexplained gaps or deletions |
Visible identification | Require officers to display agency and identification number, with narrow, documented exceptions |
Statutory use-of-force standard | Codify a minimum-force standard, a duty to intervene, and a duty to render medical aid, consistent with Barnes v. Felix (2025), which requires courts to consider the totality of the circumstances, not just the final moment |
Independent review of deaths and serious injuries | Require an independent investigation by an inspector general or other independent body, with public findings |
Evidence sharing with states | Require preservation, timely scene access, and evidence sharing with state and local investigators, with written reasons for any withholding |
Warrants and home entry | Require a judicial warrant for non-consensual home entry and clarify the limits on warrantless arrests |
Protections for U.S. citizens | Require prompt verification and release when a person shows evidence of citizenship, and public reporting on citizens detained |
Right to observe and record | Protect members of the public and the press who observe or record enforcement from a reasonable distance |
A meaningful civil remedy | Create a damages remedy against federal officers who violate constitutional rights, comparable to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for state officers, after Egbert v. Boule (2022) sharply limited such suits; and modernize the Federal Tort Claims Act |
Restore internal oversight | Re-establish DHS's Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties by statute with independence, and fund inspectors general |
Transparency and data | Require public reporting of arrests by location, use-of-force incidents, and detentions, and accurate, correctable public statements after serious incidents |
Appropriations conditions | Tie a portion of enforcement funding to body cameras, identification, reporting, and evidence-sharing compliance |
Our model bills for the 120th Congress include a federal law enforcement accountability bill covering body cameras, visible identification, and evidence sharing with states. Our power of the purse guide explains how to write durable funding conditions.
Why this should be bipartisan. Every American, of any party or background, can be stopped, detained, or harmed if the rules governing armed federal agents are unclear or unenforced. Laws that take effect for every future administration protect everyone, including the next generation of officers, from confusion and abuse. As with any reform, passage over a veto requires two-thirds of both chambers, so building support across the aisle is essential. Our open letter to Republicans in the 120th Congress makes that case. Country over Party. Patriot over Partisan.
Let's Talk
The Biazzo Law Government Oversight Program offers free, nonpartisan help to any congressional office or committee: draft preservation letters, document requests, legislative-purpose memoranda, hearing questions, and model legislation. We also welcome conversations with state and local officials working on these issues. Contact us or call (703) 297-5777.
Companion resources for the 120th Congress
Frequently asked questions
Can Congress investigate immigration enforcement violence? Yes. Congress created and funds DHS, ICE, and CBP and writes the laws governing their arrest powers and use of force. Committees may investigate for a valid legislative purpose and may subpoena documents, video, and testimony.
Can Congress prosecute federal agents? No. Congress finds facts and writes laws. Prosecution belongs to federal and state prosecutors. Congress can make referrals and must avoid interfering with pending cases.
Can states prosecute federal immigration officers? States may bring charges under state law, as Hennepin County did in 2026. Federal officers can raise Supremacy Clause immunity and remove cases to federal court, and courts decide whether the immunity applies.
What evidence should Congress preserve first? Body-worn and vehicle camera footage, radio and dispatch recordings, use-of-force reports, evidence inventories, operational plans, and communications, including on personal devices and auto-deleting apps.
Why can't people simply sue the agents? No federal statute creates a damages action against individual federal officers comparable to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Supreme Court has sharply limited court-created remedies (Egbert v. Boule, 2022). People may sue the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, subject to its limits.
Is this partisan? No. Clear rules, transparency, and accountability for armed federal agents protect every American, and laws that apply to every future administration protect officers as well.
This article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Incidents described are drawn from court records, government documents, and published reporting; allegations are not findings, and all persons are presumed innocent. Court rulings cited may have been stayed, modified, or appealed. The Biazzo Law Government Oversight Program is nonpartisan and does not endorse candidates or parties.
Comments