Attorneys for Rep. Ilhan Omar accuse the Justice Department of violating a magistrate’s court-ordered protections during a home search in an immigration fraud investigation, claims DOJ calls a publicity play.
Homeland Security Investigations agents searched the Minnesota Democrat’s Washington, D.C., home on Monday as part of a criminal probe into her family’s history and possible fraud or false statements in immigration paperwork. Her personal cellphone was among the items seized.
CBS News reported that attorneys Amy Jeffress and Joshua Matz sent an Oct. 16 letter to the Justice Department demanding the immediate return of Omar’s property and the preservation of all video and audio recordings of the search. The lawyers allege agents failed to follow protocols a magistrate judge imposed to protect her rights as a sitting member of Congress.
The Justice Department rejected the letter in blunt terms. A department spokesperson said it was “riddled with false allegations and inaccuracies.”
"Our attorneys and law enforcement partners complied with all court orders and legal obligations, as they always do,"
the spokesperson said, adding that leaking the letter right after sending it “is not good faith. It is a publicity play.”
The search warrant first went to a U.S. District Court magistrate judge about a week before agents executed it. The judge raised concerns that the warrant did not build in protocols to protect Omar’s legislative privileges under the Speech or Debate Clause, the constitutional shield that limits executive-branch interference with a member’s legislative work.
That back-and-forth produced requirements the congresswoman’s lawyers now say were ignored. They claim agents were supposed to notify both Omar and the House of Representatives Office of General Counsel when the warrant was executed. The lawyers say that notice never came.
They also allege agents blocked Omar from contacting her attorney for more than an hour after the search began, even though she and her counsel were supposed to receive a copy of the warrant at the outset.
Prosecutors had earlier argued that protections from the 2007 D.C. Circuit decision in United States v. Rayburn House Office Building should not apply because the search targeted Omar’s home rather than a congressional office. That case held that the executive branch cannot review materials seized from a sitting member without first letting the member screen them for legislative privilege.
Jeffress and Matz framed the entire investigation as political payback. In the letter they wrote:
"This vindictive, retributive, and politically motivated criminal investigation into one of the President's chief congressional critics violates Representative Omar's constitutional rights and threatens the separation of powers,"
They further argued the search “arose from a years-old, tired conspiracy theory concerning conduct stretching back decades,” and insisted there is “no legitimate basis for any suggestion that she has violated any law concerning her citizenship status.”
The lawyers also pointed to timing. Grand jury subpoenas went out to some of Omar’s family members just days before the home search. They said the department has historically avoided overt investigative steps so close to an election to prevent even the appearance of political law enforcement. In their telling, the motivations here were “clear as day,” and the search was “neither justified nor lawful.”
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin offered a different assessment. On Friday, speaking on “The Charlie Kirk Show” podcast, Mullin called the investigation a “strong case.” He said multiple warrants were served Monday, a judge had authorized the action, and investigators expected to present their case to a grand jury.
The verified sequence is straightforward. A magistrate reviewed the warrant and imposed added protections after Speech or Debate concerns. Agents then searched Omar’s D.C. home and took materials that included her personal cellphone. Family members received grand jury subpoenas shortly beforehand. Omar’s attorneys answered with an Oct. 16 letter accusing the government of breaking the judge’s rules and demanding the property back plus preservation of search recordings. The Justice Department says it followed every court order and legal duty and labels the letter a media stunt.
No charges, arrests, or indictments appear in the reporting to date. The precise list of seized items beyond the cellphone has not been made public. The full text of the magistrate’s order and the exact family members subpoenaed also remain undisclosed in the available account.
DOJ internal guidance, as described in the coverage, directs prosecutors and agents to avoid overt steps that could affect an election’s outcome or hand one candidate an edge. Omar’s lawyers treat the pre-election timing as proof of bad faith. The department treats the leaked letter as the real political move.
President Trump has long accused Omar of immigration fraud and made her a frequent political target. Her attorneys now cast the criminal inquiry itself as retaliation against a leading congressional critic. Investigators, for their part, are examining family immigration history for possible fraud and false statements, the kind of paperwork crime federal law treats as serious whether the subject holds office or not.
Members of Congress do not shed the duty to tell the truth on immigration forms. Court-ordered protocols for legislative privilege exist for a reason and should be followed. Neither side of that ledger cancels the other. If agents cut corners on a judge’s notice and counsel rules, that is a problem the courts can police. If the underlying evidence of immigration fraud is as strong as the Homeland Security secretary describes, the public is entitled to see the case tested in the ordinary way, before a grand jury and, if warranted, a trial jury, without a press-release veto from the defense bar.
Accountability is not persecution. Equal enforcement of immigration law is not a constitutional crisis. Voters can tell the difference between a member screening privileged legislative papers and a blanket demand to shut down a fraud investigation because an election calendar is inconvenient.
