The very people tasked with defending civil rights are ignoring those rights

We have a Constitution and federal laws that should allow for peaceful protesting, security in our homes and law enforcement that doesn’t threaten, coerce or intimidate while we exercise our rights, including the rights to go to school, move freely and dine peaceably. 

But, when you get on the wrong side of an executive branch that controls military, paramilitary and other armed law enforcement agents, the Department of Justice that could and should be safeguarding rights can be turned into persecutors — not protectors. 

Notably, it’s not just average inhabitants who are at risk: This vulnerability extends to Congress and the judiciary. 

The U.S. Marshals Service is part of the executive branch. The marshals’ mission includes protecting judges and enforcing court orders. Those duties could be challenging if the executive were to decide to withdraw protection from disfavored judges or decline to have his employees enforce court orders with which he disagreed. 

The U.S. Capitol Police is controlled by Congress, but Jan. 6, 2021, showed us the limitations of its size and resources. 

The U.S. Department of Justice states its mission is to uphold the rule of law, to keep our country safe, and to protect civil rights. The stated mission of U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement Enforcement and Removal Operations is to protect the homeland through the arrest and removal of those people who undermine the safety of our nation’s communities and the integrity of U.S. immigration laws. 

The Justice Department’s “stated values” include independence and impartiality, honesty and integrity, including adhering to “the highest standards of ethical behavior,” mindful that as public employees they must work to earn the trust of and inspire confidence in the public they serve. And, those employees must treat people with fairness, dignity and compassion while being responsible stewards of the taxpayers’ dollar. 

All this language comes from the Justice Department’s website but is not evident in their deportation actions in Minnesota. 

The Standards of Ethical Behavior for employees of the executive branch and various Homeland Security, Border Security ICE directives on ethics and professionalism make clear agents’ professional behavior should be above reproach. Both the Justice Department and the FBI have civil rights divisions. Their websites acknowledge their responsibilities to investigate and prosecute violations of federal civil rights statutes. Those same websites reference types of violations to be prosecuted, including conspiracies to deprive people of their civil rights, and misconduct by law enforcement and other governmental actors, as well as a variety of violations resulting from sexual assaults and improprieties under and sexual abuse of individuals in custody.

All told, the websites list more than 25 federal laws criminalizing conduct that interferes with privileges guaranteed by the Constitution. The anti-conspiracy statute further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise with the intent of preventing or hindering the free exercise or enjoyment of any rights. 

The Conspiracy Against Rights statute and the statute criminalizing misconduct by law enforcement and other governmental actors under color of law are fundamental. They make it unlawful to injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him or her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States. 

A survey of  laws and court cases shows there is no absolute right to abuse protesters, detainees  or even persons suspected of committing a crime, and, while it is devilishly hard for a state to criminally prosecute federal actors for state crimes, there is no absolute immunity.

Federal civil rights laws apply to citizens and non-citizens as prescribed by the 5th and 14th Amendments and other federal laws. Everyone is supposed to get due process and a hearing. 

We can see with our own eyes that there are anonymous federal agents acting contrary to these legal requirements. 

The Constitution is a compact the people made to allow themselves to be governed, not ruled.

The core concept was that the people’s power would be implemented by public servants operating under the rule of law. Free speech rights; the right to assemble; the right to petition the government for redress of grievances; the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; and the right to confront one’s accusers are bedrock benefits acknowledged in the Constitution. 

It is beyond sad to see so many invoke the rule of the gun to deny these rights. Minnesota has a Peace Officers Standards and Training Board. The POST Board establishes the minimum requirements for licensing law enforcement officers. Federal officers are supposed to be credentialed or commissioned through their agencies.  

U.S. Homeland Security Department agents participating in ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations should be attending the ICE Basic Immigration Enforcement Training Program and Deportation Officer Transition Program or have equivalent federal or state training. That training is supposed to last 16 weeks (or maybe 13 depending on which ICE guidance you trust) at the Glynco, Georgia Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. The listed curriculum includes immigration and constitutional law. Some reports suggest training is down to 42 days.

Based on what we are seeing, we can’t identify agents, and we don’t know what has been taught or what has been learned. There is no accessible database in Minnesota to prove ICE agents in Minnesota have sufficient critical thinking skills or adequate information on immigration law and the 4th Amendment to act properly in the environment in which they find themselves. 

We do know that in September of 2025 new federal rules were adopted adding special ICE agents authorized to carry guns and investigate, arrest and present for prosecution violators of America’s immigration laws. This rule came from the bureaucracy — not Congress. 

The very people who are supposed to be trained and tasked with defending civil rights are the ones ignoring those rights and responsibilities and perverting their power right down to claiming the right to break down doors and enter homes without a warrant signed by a judge. 

What we are witnessing in Minnesota is causing sadness, anger and injury. The rule of law is being abused with impunity, although some federal judges have lost patience with the lawlessness.

New “rules” without new laws are being conjured out of whole cloth. 

In the maelstrom of these times, one other set of laws comes to mind. The laws on vulnerable adult abuse. People who are subject to being forced, compelled, coerced or enticed to perform services for the advantage of another are vulnerable adults.  

Seems like this applies to a vast swath of Congress. 

Their mental and moral competency is in question. Their complicity is apparent.