As one possible government shutdown was narrowly avoided on Wednesday, another looms as Senate and House Democrats “stand united” on a list of demands that would bring federal enforcement of civil laws to a screeching halt.
At the top of Congressional Democrats’ demands is a requirement for Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents – operating under civil law – to obtain “judicial warrants” prior to any actions. The unprecedented demand not only poses a direct challenge to the authority of all Article II executive branch agencies – tasked with “faithfully executing” the laws that Congress passes – but also highlights the moral relativism of the party itself.
ICE, and all other administrative agencies such as Child Protective Services, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Drug Enforcement Agency operate as the enforcers of civil laws, outlined in the United States Code. These executive agencies, which serve “at the pleasure of the president,” are neither judicial officers nor do they even operate under the judicial branch. When it comes to enforcing federal laws, the Constitution is very clear in delineating the jurisdiction of each branch of government.
In simple terms, only a judicial officer can issue a judicial warrant. Whereas an administrative officer can only issue an administrative warrant, the type of warrant issued is specific to the jurisdiction. This subtle difference in words differentiates two completely separate areas or jurisdictions of law – civil vs criminal – per the separation of powers.
With few exceptions, Immigration and Customs Enforcement is the only agency legally permitted to enforce the civil immigration laws Congress passes. Prior to making arrests, agents must obtain an administrative warrant issued by an Immigration Law Judge. Checked by the powers of the judicial branch, federal courts have long upheld that administrative warrants are not somehow lesser than judicial warrants – as activists are claiming – but are instead proper instruments of administrative jurisdiction.
Yet, if Democratic lawmakers prevail in their demand for judicial warrants, it would constitute a de facto amendment to Article II, immediately halting the executive branch’s authority to enforce civil laws, and setting an unprecedented criminal threshold that blurs jurisdictional lines.
At a time when Democrats have weaponized administrative warrants, even expanding ex-parte powers (without the accused present) to swiftly debank opponents, enforce quiet skies, seize assets, silence opponents, and remove children from parents who refuse to affirm gender identity, this glaring inconsistency of legal application exposes the party’s increasing level of moral relativism.
In Democrat-run states, non-affirmation of gender identity is assessed as endangering a child’s mental health. Child Protective Services (an administrative agency) can issue an administrative warrant to take kids from schools, and even bust in doors without warrants for probable cause of an “imminent threat.” Nationally, Democrats have pushed to expand administrative authority, and the use of administrative warrants, whenever a Democrat has been in charge of the executive branch.
Recently, under the Biden administration, Democrats rapidly expanded the police and enforcement authority of the executive branch, hiring armed agents at the IRS, HHS, and even under the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service—resulting in the mass killing of millions of livestock.
Now that a Republican is running the executive branch, however, Democrats are willing to hold the federal government hostage, prioritizing ideology over legal consistency.
Sen. Katie Britt, who has been deputized by Republican leadership to lead talks on behalf of Senate Republicans, called the demands ridiculous on X Wednesday night.
Democrats’ newest proposal is a ridiculous Christmas list of demands for the press.
This is NOT negotiating in good faith, and it’s NOT what the American people want.
They continue to play politics to their radical base at the expense of the safety of Americans.
DHS, FEMA,… https://t.co/iZPhr83NBn
— Senator Katie Boyd Britt (@SenKatieBritt) February 5, 2026
The funding in question includes funding for body cameras. Part of Secretary Kristi Noem’s transparency promise, DHS policy was updated and published to the federal register on July 18 of last year, incorporating the use of body worn cameras for ICE agents.
Yet, following multiple appropriations showdowns, the agency has been waiting on the funding to purchase the cameras. The appropriations bill also includes funding for security during the FIFA World Cup and Olympic games in addition to FEMA disaster aid, HUD housing programs, Coast Guard operations and support for the gridlocked judicial branch.
If judicial warrants become mandatory for ICE, agents would no longer be able to enforce civil laws, only criminal law. Even arresting high-priority targets like violent felons would require detailed affidavits and prior court approval, delaying operations amid gridlocked court dockets.
While “judicial” vs “administrative” warrants currently appear to be a play on words, the legal implications are massive and potentially far reaching. The precedent set would unavoidably extend to challenges of other agencies, blocking IRS audits, EPA enforcements or FDA recalls until Article III courts — already backlogged — intervene. The action could effectively paralyze administrative functions nationwide, and fundamentally act as a de facto amendment to Article II – executive authority – of the Constitution.
