this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2026
686 points (99.3% liked)

politics

27380 readers
4048 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The ruling in federal court in Minnesota lands as Immigration and Customs Enforcement faces scrutiny over an internal memo claiming judge-signed warrants aren’t needed to enter homes without consent.

A federal judge in Minnesota ruled last Saturday that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents violated the Fourth Amendment after they forcibly entered a Minnesota man’s home without a judicial warrant.

The conduct of the agents closely mirrors a previously undisclosed ICE directive that claims agents are permitted to enter people’s homes using an administrative warrant, rather than a warrant signed by a judge.

The ruling, issued by US District Court judge Jeffrey Bryan in response to a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on January 17, did not assess the legality of ICE’s internal guidance itself. But it squarely holds that federal agents violated the United States Constitution when they entered a residence without consent and without a judge-signed warrant—the same conditions ICE leadership has privately told officers is sufficient for home arrests, according to a complaint filed by Whistleblower Aid, a nonprofit legal group representing whistleblowers from the public and private sector.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Soup@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

So what was January 6th to you? It’s like someone missed killing someone else and your response to just tell them you got your eyes on them and will totally bring the hammer down after they finally succeed in killing someone.

Maybe it’s just the US’s belief that what they have is normal and cool, but even what is considered normal there is insanity in many other places. The system has had so many chances, and yes I still agree that it does not need to be completely obliterated, but at some point you cannot sit there waiting for the worst outcome before acting. The country has been utterly desensitized to incredibly heinous acts, to the point where they see ICE murdering people in the streets and that’s still not too far for many of them.

For examle: 99% of what Fox News says is straight-up lies, libel, fraud, bullying, incitement to violence, and good ol’ fashioned hate-speech. It’s not throwing out the legal system and trampling on their free-speech to want to see the entire organization persecuted for the damage they’ve caused.

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

So what was January 6th to you? It’s like someone missed killing someone else and your response to just tell them you got your eyes on them and will totally bring the hammer down after they finally succeed in killing someone.

They failed and we sent thousands of people involved in the conspiracy to prison. Elsewhere the systems of elections and government withstood every attempt the Trump administration to change things. The systems worked.

You're promoting the idea that those system are going to fail and therefore we should not even try and, instead we should <vague plan, but violence>.

There is no evidence of that outside of the incessant fear mongering on social media that you are taking part in.

The Judicial system has restrained Trump time and time again and the only reason there are not more widespread rulings is because the only entity with standing to sue the administration (the Legislative branch) is being held paralyzed by a very tiny group of people in Congress and those people are up for re-election.

Those people can be voted out and Congress has both the standing to sue and compel the Executive branch via court orders and the ability to impeach and remove Executive or Judicial branch members.

Let's hear your plan, take me through the steps of how you see this issue solved in a way that is more sure than the system that we've used for centuries.