In early June 2025, massive Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations in Los Angeles resulted in the detention of dozens of illegal aliens. Protests followed—some peaceful, others turning violent, and in some cases setting parts of the city of LA on fire. Police and civilians alike were assaulted by the protesters. In response, President Trump federalized approximately 4,000 National Guard troops and deployed 700 Marines to support enforcement efforts. California immediately sued, invoking both the Posse Comitatus Act and the Tenth Amendment.

ICE’s Legal Authority Over Illegal Aliens

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. §§ 1225, 1357), ICE officials are statutorily empowered to arrest illegal aliens, particularly those with criminal convictions. This authority includes warrantless entry into vehicles, vessels, or workplaces, subject—critically—to Fourth Amendment scrutiny.

Even though these individuals are in the U.S. unlawfully, they retain constitutional protections. The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that illegal aliens within U.S. borders are protected by the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The Supreme Court has made clear that “once an alien enters the country, the legal circumstance changes, for the Due Process Clause applies to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001). The Court has likewise held that Fourth Amendment standards apply to government searches and seizures even when the targets are illegal aliens encountered during enforcement operations. See Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266, 272–73 (1973) (Fourth Amendment prohibited warrantless vehicle search of suspected illegal alien conducted away from the border); INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 216–17 (1984) (workplace sweeps by immigration agents must comply with Fourth Amendment limits on seizures). Lower courts have followed suit, suppressing ICE detainers and warrantless arrests that lack probable cause. See Morales v. Chadbourne, 793 F.3d 208, 216-17 (1st Cir. 2015).

Deploying Federal Troops: What Law Says

Unless the president invokes the Insurrection Act of 1807, the Posse Comitatus Act generally prohibits military involvement in domestic law enforcement. President Trump’s approach here is legally nuanced.

Rather than directly invoking the Insurrection Act’s classic grounds for federal troop deployment, the administration has relied on 10 U.S.C. § 12406, which authorizes the federalization of National Guard units to “execute the laws of the United States” or suppress an “invasion” or “rebellion.” Section 12406 does not require formal invocation of the Insurrection Act.

Active-duty Marines, however, are subject to the stricter limits of the Posse Comitatus Act. Under current orders, they may protect federal property or personnel—but may not perform arrests or searches unless the President formally invokes the Insurrection Act to authorize such actions. Federal courts will likely examine this deployment closely as litigation unfolds.

The State–Federal Showdown

California’s lawsuit hinges on two main arguments. First, the state contends that Trump deployed federal troops without Governor Newsom’s consent, which is historically unprecedented in recent decades and raises concerns under the Tenth Amendment. Second, California argues that active-duty Marines are barred from participating in domestic law enforcement activities by the Posse Comitatus Act, and that the current deployment skirts these legal restrictions.

Federal defenders counter that 10 U.S.C. § 12406 authorizes troop deployment in response to civil unrest affecting federal operations, particularly where state and local forces appear insufficient. They also invoke the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which gives federal law precedence over conflicting state measures. Courts must now decide whether § 12406 provides adequate legal footing for the deployment or whether the President must formally invoke the Insurrection Act.

Family Law & Constitutional Due Process Implications

These enforcement actions inevitably intersect with family law. When illegal aliens are detained, their children may face separation, placement in foster care, or complex custody disputes—particularly when one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful resident. In such situations, affected families often seek habeas corpus relief or assert constitutional claims grounded in due process—both to challenge detention and to safeguard parental rights during removal proceedings.

Appellate courts are already grappling with these issues. Recent cases have examined whether government actions surrounding ICE raids and detentions comport with constitutional protections, particularly where minor children are involved. These proceedings serve as an essential legal check on executive power, ensuring that immigration enforcement operates within the bounds of constitutional guarantees.

Department of State v. Muñoz, 602 U.S. 899 (2024) is illustrative. There, an alleged affiliate of the violent gang MS-13 sought to enter the country to live with his wife, a U.S. citizen. The Department denied his visa application. In upholding the decision, the Supreme Court acknowledged the profound impact such enforcement decisions can have on families—but also reaffirmed the sovereign right of the United States to protect its borders:

While “families of putative immigrants certainly have an interest in their admission,” it is a “fallacy” to leap from that premise to the conclusion that United States citizens have a “ ‘fundamental right’ ” that can limit how Congress exercises “the Nation’s sovereign power to admit or exclude foreigners.”

Id. at 915-16. Thus, while it is true that ICE raids and related immigration policies may affect families, the law also recognizes that the safety and security of the American people remain paramount.

Appeals & Constitutional Law in Focus

This dispute is now poised for the appellate stage. Courts will soon confront Fourth Amendment challenges to warrantless ICE raids, with questions arising as to how traditional search-and-seizure principles apply to large-scale immigration enforcement. Simultaneously, the scope of presidential authority to deploy troops under 10 U.S.C. § 12406—as compared to the more sweeping Insurrection Act—will face constitutional scrutiny. Finally, the ongoing clash between federal immigration enforcement and state sovereignty raises profound Tenth Amendment questions about cooperative federalism and the limits of federal power.

As these legal battles advance, landmark appellate decisions will help define the permissible reach of presidential power—especially under the watchful eye of experienced constitutional lawyers tracking these developments.

Unexpected Unity: Legal Oversight & Civic Order

Interestingly, the constitutional constraints at play here serve interests valued across the political spectrum. For many liberals, judicial review and checks on military power remain foundational to preserving civil liberties. For many conservatives, enforcing immigration laws and restoring public order during times of unrest are equally vital.

Ultimately, ensuring that enforcement actions respect both due process and constitutional boundaries protects not just individual rights—but the structural integrity of American governance itself. Let the law proceed—but ensure that it proceeds lawfully. This is a principle that all Americans, regardless of political affiliation, should be able to unite behind.

Conclusion: Power, Proof & the Courts

Trump’s decisions on ICE raids and troop deployment are grounded in credible legal authority—not gubernatorial fiat or rhetoric alone. But that authority faces significant constitutional hurdles and likely appellate review, with the courts serving as the ultimate arbiter.

For anyone seeking clarity on constitutional law, this case encapsulates enduring questions about executive reach, federalism, and constitutional norms. As legal challenges progress, one thing is clear: Trump’s actions will be tested—and defined—by the rule of law.

Image Credit: OpenAI DALL·E.