Bullets and Balaclavas: How ICE Brutality During Arrests Violates the Rule of Law

By: Poema Sumrow

Edited By: Ethan Schott

Photo by Madison Stewart/ SLATE/ AFP via. Getty Images

The Trump administration has launched a mass deportation campaign against migrants living in the United States without authorization, relying heavily on the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency to enforce this policy agenda. In their campaign, the administration pledged to arrest 3,000 people a day to realize their goal of removing all people without authorization from the United States (Olivares, 2025). As of December 2025, ICE has arrested more than 328,000 people and deported nearly 327,000 (Craft and Witherspoon, 2025). Most of the detainees have no criminal records, and many are American citizens, highlighting how agents rely on racial profiling as a justification for arrest instead of criminal history (Bier, 2025). In the process of enforcing their agenda, ICE has killed at least two U.S. citizens–Alex Pretti and Renée Good–as well as shot and wounded civilians, donned plainclothes to trap targets, and allowed more than 32 people to die while in their custody (Ramirez, 2026; Singh et al., 2026). In light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Noem v. Vasquez Perdido, ICE’s reliance on racial profiling and obscuring agents’ identities, compounded with the habit of depriving those targeted of due process, demonstrates the severity of the Trump administration’s anti-immigration rhetoric and its infringement upon the constitutional principles of due process and equality. It is incumbent upon US lawmakers to reform racial profiling laws in the U.S. so that “Kavanaugh stops” cannot be used to subject innocent Latin Americans to undue discrimination on the basis of their race or ethnicity (Herman et al., 2026), as well as pushing for policy that halts the legal usage of masked arrests in immigration enforcement.

In Noem v. Vasquez Perdido, the Supreme Court recently ruled that ICE could lawfully rely on racial profiling as a probable justification to arrest, creating a dangerous precedent when applying undue use of force to minority communities in the U.S. (Ryan et al., 2025). In his concurring opinion in Noem, Justice Kavanaugh claims that federal officials may rely on Spanish-speaking, accented English, or proximity to a labor site as justification for apprehension. In instances where detainees are found to be American citizens, federal officials promise to “promptly” let them go (Noem v. Vasquez Perdido, 2025). Hence, these apprehensions are colloquially referred to as “Kavanaugh-stops.” Based on recent events in democratic stronghold cities like Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Washington, D.C., and across the nation, coupled with the reality that roughly 20% of detainees have no criminal record upon being arrested, it is clear that ICE’s apprehension process is neither prompt nor equitable, but rather a means of achieving the Trump administration’s anti-immigration policy agenda (Bier, 2025). Building on the decision in Trump v. Illinois, Justice Kavanaugh stated that arrests may be carried out only when justified by probable cause and that ICE may not use excessive force when making arrests (Trump v. Illinois, 2025). While race now constitutes a probable cause for arrest, ICE is still in violation of unlawfully using excessive force, a belief shared by 60% of Americans (Ray et al., 2026).

In 2005, ICE sanctioned agents to conceal their identities when approaching targets they had no warrant to detain or arrest. Called “ruses,” these tactics may range from impersonating local police or workmen to concealing identities altogether (Kam, 2022). Because most agents lack warrants when carrying out arrests, they rely solely on verbal consent to circumvent a lack of official authorization to enter spaces protected by the Fourth Amendment, such as private property (“ICE Ruses”). The number of arrests made by agents with obscured identities has increased exponentially since President Trump took office and significantly threatens public safety. When ICE agents cannot be identified, they cannot be held accountable to the regulations that apply to federal agencies, suggesting masked ICE agents enjoy a level of immunity that other federal agents do not (Human Rights Watch, 2025). Similarly, when people are detained by ICE, they are rarely given the opportunity to represent their cases in court, further undermining the spirit of the universal right to due process (Lieu, 2025). Since October 2025, judges across the country have reported the Trump administration nearly 4,500 times for unlawful detentions by ICE, and detainees with limited access to justice have filed more than 20,000 lawsuits petitioning for their release (Raymond et al, 2026). Such tactics highlight how little impact dissent and court actions have on the agency’s power, necessitating further action to compel compliance. The combination of ICE’s reliance on ruses to conceal agents’ identities and the overt use of violence against detainees has created an environment where ICE is operating with near immunity (Human Rights Watch, 2025). The Supreme Court’s decision in Noem and the realities of masked arrests reflect dangerous truths about the overall safety of Latin Americans in the U.S. 

The solutions and policy implications are two-fold: firstly, it is incumbent upon Congress to put in place bills that prevent ICE from using tactics that discriminate against Latin Americans, both in terms of masked arrests and racial profiling. Bill A6236, proposed in New Jersey, requires all federal officials, including ICE agents, to identify themselves before engaging with civilians (A6236). Likewise, the Visible Act, championed by Senators Cory Booker (NJ) and Alex Padilla (CA), requires that ICE agents’ identities not be obscured when interfacing with civilians, thereby prohibiting them from wearing masks during arrests (S.2212). While these bills are still in motion, it is imperative that they reach the Congressional floor so they may have the potential to be passed. Moreover, the Immigrant Defense Fund filed a lawsuit, Immigrant Defense Project, et al. v. ICE, et al., to make all ICE memos and documentation on the legality of ruses available to the public (“ICE Ruses”). It is imperative that future initiatives like this one–ones that see the collaboration between civil society, NGOs and governmental organizations–are pursued and advocated for.

Secondly, a contempt mechanism must be put in place to ensure that ICE follows court orders regarding its conduct. A major concern regarding noncompliance with court orders has arisen during President Trump’s second presidency. While courts have the discretionary power to hold those who do not comply with a ruling in contempt, the president has the power to pardon those accused of civil or criminal liability. In 2017, President Trump pardoned a sheriff in Arizona after he had violated court orders to halt the use of racial profiling in deportations of suspected unauthorized migrants (Abusaif et al., 2025). 

It is incumbent upon courts to hold the president in contempt for violating orders, thereby increasing the costs of noncompliance for the Trump administration and, by association, ICE (Parillo, 2017). Individuals on American soil are rightfully owed freedom from illegal interrogation, apprehension, arrest, and deportation. The constitution enshrines checks and balances so that no branch may have more power than another; it is necessary that court orders be enforced so as to uphold this principle.

The views expressed in this publication are the authors' own and do not necessarily reflect the position of The Rice Journal of Public Policy, its staff, or its Editorial Board.

---

References

Abusaif, Yasmin and Douglas Keith. (2025). “What Courts Can Do If the Trump Administration Defies Court Orders, Brennan Center for Justice, 14 February 2025, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/what-courts-can-do-if-trump-administration-defies-court-orders.

Bier, David J. (2025). “One in Five ICE Arrests Are Latinos on the Streets with No Criminal Past or Removal Order,” The Cato Institute, 5 August 2025, https://www.cato.org/blog/1/5-ice-arrests-are-latinos-streets-no-criminal-past-or-removal-order.

Craft, Will and Andrew Witherspoon. (2025). “Number of people in ICE detention hits record high, data shows,” The Guardian, 22 December 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/22/ice-detentions-record-immigration.

Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America et al. v. Illinois, et al., 607 U. S. ____ (2025)

Herman, Dan, Allie Preston and Gréta Betekovics. (2026). “The Trump Administration’s ICE and CBP Have Become a Threat to Americans: Congress Must Ensure That DHS Follows the Law and Adopts Commonsense Reforms,” The Center for American Progress, 28 January 2026, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-trump-administrations-ice-and-cbp-have-become-a-threat-to-americans-congress-must-ensure-that-dhs-follows-the-law-and-adopts-commonsense-reforms/.

Human Rights Watch. (2025). “US: Masked Federal Agents Undermine Rule of Law,” 18 December 2025, https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/12/18/us-masked-federal-agents-undermine-rule-of-law.

Immigrant Defense Project. “ICE Ruses,” Immigrant Defense Project, https://www.immigrantdefenseproject.org/ice-ruses/.

Kam, Min K. (2022). “ICE Ruses: From Deception to Deportation,” Columbia Law Review, 122(1) 126-172. http://columbialawreview.org/content/ice-ruses-from-deception-to-deportation/.

Lieu, T. Jenniffer. (2025). “The Accountability Deficit: When Immigration Detention Obstructs One’s Day in Criminal Court,” Columbia Law Review, 125(6), 1631–1694. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27426830.

NJ A6236, https://legiscan.com/NJ/bill/A6236/2024.

Noem v. Vasquez, 606 U. S ____ (2025), https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/25a169_5h25.pdf.

Olivares, José. (2025). “Trump administration sets quota to arrest 3,000 people a day in anti-immigration agenda,” The Guardian, 29 May 2025, doi: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/29/trump-ice-arrest-quota. 

Parillo, Nicholas. (2017). “Holding the Federal Government in Contempt of Court: What Powers Do Judges Have Over an Administration?” Just Security, 2 March 2017, https://www.justsecurity.org/38268/holding-federal-government-contempt-court-powers-judges-administration/.

Ramirez, Ilse. (2026). “6 Deaths in ICE Custody and 2 Fatal Shootings: A Horrific Start to 2026,” American Immigration Council, 11 February 2026, https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/ice-deaths-shootings-2026/.

Ray, Rashawn and Gabriel R. Sanchez. (2026). “ICE expansion has outpaced accountability. What are the remedies?” The Brookings Institution, 26 January 2026, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/ice-expansion-has-outpaced-accountability-what-are-the-remedies/.

Raymond, Nate and Brad Heath. (2026). “Courts have ruled 4,400 times that ICE jailed people illegally. It hasn’t stopped,” Reuters, 14 February 2026, https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/courts-have-ruled-4400-times-that-ice-jailed-people-illegally-it-hasnt-stopped-2026-02-14/.

Ryan, Erika, Scott Detrow, Jasmine Garsd, and Avery Keatley. (2025). “The Supreme Court Clears the Way for ICE Agents to Treat Race as Grounds for Immigration Stops,” NPR, 13 September 2025, https://www.npr.org/2025/09/13/nx-s1-5507125/the-supreme-court-clears-the-way-for-ice-agents-to-treat-race-as-grounds-for-immigration-stops.

Singh, Maanvi, Coral Murphy Marcos and Charlotte Simmonds. (2026). “2025 was ICE’s Deadliest Year in Two Decades. Here are the 32 People who Died in Custody,” The Guardian, 4 January 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/jan/04/ice-2025-deaths-timeline.

S.2212 - Visible Act, https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/2212.