The Supreme Court Might Be About to Turbocharge ICE Even More Than Trump’s Big Bill

Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily.

The Trump megabill poised to pass Congress would turn Immigration and Customs Enforcement into the most powerful federal police force in American history. By unsettling coincidence, the Supreme Court agreed last month to take up a case that could somehow make things so much worse.

That bill, which faces a decisive vote in the House of Representatives, promises billions in new funding for ICE, tens of thousands of new agents, and a mandate to carry out mass deportations not only at the border, but deep inside the country—in schools, in hospital parking lots, on residential streets, and in homes.

Now, a case the Supreme Court will decide next term threatens to accelerate the breakdown of constitutional limits on government entry into private homes. On its surface, Case v. Montana is not about immigration. It asks whether police violated the Constitution when they entered a man’s home during a welfare check—without a warrant, without an emergency, and based only on a thirdhand report that he might be suicidal. When he didn’t answer the door, they returned with rifles and a ballistic shield, and went in. Inside, they found drug paraphernalia and what they claimed was methamphetamine. The man, William Case, moved to suppress the evidence as the product of an unlawful search. He is now asking the court to reverse the Montana courts and hold that the search violated the Fourth Amendment.

Montana insists this wasn’t a search. It was aid. That officers didn’t need probable cause—only a “reasonable belief” that someone inside might need help. The court has previously upheld limited emergency entries, but always with clearly defined exigencies, not the unbounded, unverifiable standard Montana now asks it to adopt. Indeed, the standard it proposes has no fixed boundaries. No definition of danger. No threshold for entry. No requirement that the belief be verified, or even verifiable. If the court adopts it, ICE will will be one of the many law enforcement agencies not needing a warrant to cross your threshold. It will only need a justification. A welfare call. A safety tip. A closed door. A silence misread or claimed as threat.

That is what makes this case so dangerous under Trump’s renewed deportation agenda. ICE will not have to say it was pursuing someone. It can say it was concerned. That it heard something. That it feared someone might be in distress. Silence becomes probable cause. A raid becomes a rescue.

Montana’s position offers a restrained picture of the emergency aid doctrine: officers entering to stop a suicide or deliver medical care. But the standard it wants the court to adopt is anything but restrained. It sets no threshold for danger, no limit on whose safety justifies entry, and no requirement that fear be grounded in fact. Yet once “aid” is unmoored from concrete harm, it becomes a catchall for anything the state claims to prevent. Protection becomes removal. Help becomes whatever the officer calls it.

In theory, emergency aid means saving lives. But in practice—especially when used by immigration agents—it can mean extraction. Not because of what someone has done, but because of who they are. A flagged name. An anonymous tip. A closed door. The agent claims concern for someone’s safety. That is the script. And under Montana’s standard, it may be enough.

The law has long known how to ignore a law enforcement agent’s motive for his search. In Whren v. United States, the Supreme Court held that an officer’s true reason for stopping a car—no matter how discriminatory—was irrelevant if the stop was otherwise legal. Case threatens to bring that logic to the front door. And it will not stop with local police. The rule Montana seeks has no limits on who can invoke it or toward what end.

This is not theoretical. It is already happening. Police conduct wellness checks that end in death. People in psychiatric crisis are killed in their homes. Immigration agents arrive under the guise of protection and leave with someone detained. The state does not need new tactics. It needs only permission to keep using the ones it has. What Case offers is that permission.

The danger is magnified by the facts of this case. The simplicity may blind the court to the implications of its ruling. A doctrine born from a rather unremarkable record can become the basis for violent outcomes.

The standard Montana’s argument invites—vague, unverified belief—is the same one used most aggressively in marginalized communities. Silence in a white suburb is read as privacy. Silence in a predominantly Black neighborhood or an undocumented person’s dwelling is read as threat.

What’s more, “reasonable belief” has no fixed meaning. It requires no corroboration. No defined danger. No explanation of why it outweighed the sanctity of the home. It turns on what the officer thought or what the officer can later persuade a court he thought. That is not a safeguard. It is an alibi. Once the door is breached, the question becomes whether the belief was plausible in retrospect. The narrative becomes the proof. The entry becomes the evidence. Montana’s rule removes any barrier before entry occurs. It breaks the Fourth Amendment’s core function—not to validate power after the fact, but to stop it when unjustified.

Probable cause is not immune to these pressures. It too can be manipulated, distorted, molded to fit the shape of police intent. But it is not unbounded. It demands more than belief. It demands evidence. It asks the state to present something tangible, something falsifiable, before crossing the threshold. That requirement, even when imperfectly applied, reflects a recognition that the home is not merely private. It is sacred. The court has always described it as the “first among equals” in Fourth Amendment protection. What Montana proposes would reduce it to the first place the state is permitted to look.

Trump’s administration has said what it intends to do. It is doing it. ICE is already conducting raids under the pretense of safety. It is already disappearing people from hospitals, schools, and homes. What Case threatens is not that this will begin. It is that the law will sanctify it. Because once the court says a home can be entered without probable cause or a warrant—as long as the state claims it was trying to help—the door is not open. It is gone. And by the time people realize it, an armed agent will already be inside.

The court will not write Trump’s deportation policy. But it may write the rule that makes it unstoppable. That is what Case is really about. Not wellness. Not aid. Not a narrow exception. It is about whether the Constitution still protects the most sacred space in American law from the most unaccountable machinery of the state. And whether we will recognize, before it disappears, what that protection was for.

Sign up for Slate's evening newsletter.