Protesters Tell ICE to “Read the Constitution,” But Their Actions Are Constitutional
On Wednesday night, federal and local law enforcement set up a checkpoint in Washington, D.C., stopping vehicles for traffic violations such as broken taillights and seat belt infractions. Witnesses reported that officers, many wearing vests labeled with Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) or ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations, also asked some drivers about their immigration status.
The checkpoint drew public outcry, with nearly 100 protesters gathering at the scene. Demonstrators held signs, chanted slogans, and warned passing motorists about the checkpoint. Some directed their criticism toward ICE agents, urging them to “read the Constitution,” and accused the Trump administration of overreach in immigration enforcement.
Despite criticism, immigration enforcement operations like these are grounded in long-standing federal laws. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operates under authority granted by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, and later expanded under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. These laws authorize ICE to question, arrest, detain, and initiate removal proceedings for noncitizens, including powers delegated to local law enforcement under Section 287(g).
Legal challenges to ICE’s authority have largely failed in the courts. In a notable 8–1 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the federal government’s discretion in setting immigration enforcement priorities and rejected efforts by states to override those priorities.
While critics have accused President Trump of creating his own immigration policies, most of the enforcement measures in place today are based on existing federal law. Since returning to office, Trump has signed only a limited number of new immigration bills. The most significant is the Laken Riley Act, signed in January 2025, which mandates detention without bond for certain noncitizens involved in theft-related crimes or violent offenses, and allows states to sue the federal government over immigration enforcement decisions.
Efforts to reduce or eliminate “sanctuary” policies have also intensified. Legislation such as the No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act (H.R. 32) and the Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act (S. 1068) seeks to restrict federal funding to jurisdictions that do not cooperate with immigration authorities. The House of Representatives recently voted to overturn Washington, D.C.’s sanctuary policy, requiring full cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
Supporters of these measures argue they are necessary for public safety and the rule of law, pointing to federal statutes such as Title 8 U.S.C. § 1324, which criminalizes the harboring or shielding of individuals unlawfully present in the U.S. President Trump has also issued executive orders directing federal officials to pursue both civil and criminal actions against jurisdictions that obstruct immigration enforcement. Legal advocacy groups like the America First Legal Foundation have echoed this stance, warning sanctuary city leaders of potential legal consequences.
As immigration enforcement remains a contentious issue, the checkpoint in Washington, D.C., highlights the ongoing tension between federal authority and local resistance, as well as the broader debate over the future of U.S. immigration policy.
About Post Author
