In theory yes, but in practice it's more unclear. There are conflicting Supreme Court precedents, that weaken the Fourth Amendment in cases where criminal penalties don't apply. Asset foreiture is another example.

> I think it's a pretty big undersell to describe ICE as "marshals" too - they've got plenty of discretion in how they prioritize targeted people and who they detain. They are not just a neutral party executing court orders.

Yep. That's also a difference between theory and practice.

??

What exactly do you disagree with? Most immigration violations are a civil matter (USC section 8). There are criminal violations like human trafficking or illegal entry. But if you came into the US with a visa and then overstayed, you're not committing anything criminal.

And even illegal entry is a misdemeanor, the maximum punishment is at most 6 months in jail. So yeah, ICE and DHS _technically_ don't have more power than regular marshals for most immigration cases.

Which should scare you, btw. There are plenty of civil violations that can be similarly weaponized in future.