Rep. Ilhan Omar Lawyers Accuse Justice Department of Violating Protocols During Home Search
Attorneys Accuse Justice Department of Violating Magistrate Judge Orders During Search
Attorneys for Representative Ilhan Omar accused the Justice Department on Oct. 16, 2026, of violating a magistrate judge’s order by failing to follow protocols designed to safeguard her constitutional interests as a member of Congress during an Oct. 12 search of her Washington, D.C. home, CBS News reported. Lawyers Amy Jeffress and Joshua Matz filed a letter asking the government to immediately return the congresswoman’s property and demanding the preservation of all video and audio recordings of the search.
“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,” the attorneys wrote in the letter reviewed by CBS News. Homeland Security Investigations agents executed the search warrant on Oct. 12, 2026, seizing her personal cellphone as part of an investigation into her family’s history for evidence of possible fraud and false statements in their immigration paperwork. Grand jury subpoenas were also issued to some of her family members days before the search.
A Justice Department spokesperson disputed the claims in a statement, calling the letter “riddled with false allegations and inaccuracies.” The spokesperson maintained that law enforcement partners complied with all court orders and legal obligations while criticizing the decision to share the letter with the press immediately after sending it.
Search Warrant Sparks Debate over Legislative Privileges
The search warrant was presented to a magistrate judge in U.S. District Court roughly a week before its execution, sparking a debate over legislative privileges under the Constitution’s speech and debate clause. These protections originate from the 2007 United States v. Rayburn House Office Building D.C. Circuit Court case, which prevents the executive branch from reviewing seized information without allowing a sitting member of Congress first to screen it for legislative privilege. Prosecutors initially argued the case did not apply because the search occurred at Omar’s home rather than her congressional office.
Omar’s legal team outlined specific violations of the magistrate judge’s requirements in their correspondence. HSI agents allegedly neglected to notify both Omar and the House of Representatives Office of General Counsel when executing the search warrant. The letter also asserts that agents prevented Omar from contacting her attorney for over an hour after the search began, despite requirements to present a copy of the warrant at the outset.
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin publicly discussed the nonpublic investigation during a podcast appearance on Friday, describing it as a “strong case” in an interview with Andrew Kolvet on “The Charlie Kirk Show.” Mullin noted that multiple warrants had been served and investigators expected to present their case to a grand jury following judicial authorization. Federal officials typically avoid open discussion of ongoing criminal investigations beyond confirming court-ordered searches, adhering to due process protections and grand jury secrecy rules.
Justice Department Timing Contradicts Internal Guidelines
The timing of the search warrant and grand jury subpoenas has drawn scrutiny from veteran former prosecutors. Conducting overt investigative steps involving a sitting member of Congress close to an election appears to contradict internal Justice Department guidelines advising officials to avoid actions that could influence election outcomes or advantage any candidate.
“Historically, the Department has refrained from this type of investigative activity so close to an election, so as to avoid even the appearance of politically motivated law enforcement actions,” Omar’s lawyers wrote. They characterized the inquiry as stemming from a years-old conspiracy theory concerning decades-old conduct, stating there is no legitimate basis for suggestions that she violated citizenship laws. Omar has frequently been a political target of President Trump and his allies, who have criticized her Somali heritage and religion while accusing her of immigration fraud.
The Justice Department maintains that its actions were lawful and executed in good faith alongside law enforcement partners, leaving the timeline for potential grand jury proceedings and the return of seized property unresolved.