A federal judge offered a serious criticism of Kristi Noem’s Department of Homeland Security, after finding that agents obtained a search warrant using a law that does not exist.
This issue emerged in a ruling by U.S. District Judge Brenda K. Sannes, chief judge of the Northern District of New York. The case is linked to an immigration raid conducted by U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Homeland Security Investigations at a nutrition bar factory in Cato, New York. Sannes allowed a motion to suppress evidence collected during the raid, stating that agents exceeded their authorized actions.
A crucial detail buried in a footnote of the ruling embarrassed the government. As Sannes examined the documents related to the raid, she found that federal agents requested a warrant to search for “evidence, contraband, fruits, and instrumentalities” connected to alleged immigration and identity fraud violations. The request referenced a mix of statutes pertaining to the employment, transport, or harboring of undocumented immigrants, along with fraud related to identification documents and Social Security numbers.
However, the citations were inconsistent as Sannes pointed out that the warrant application sometimes mentioned 8 U.S.C. § 1324, a valid immigration statute, while at other times it referred to “8 U.S.C. § 1342(a),” which she noted “does not appear to exist.”
“The warrant itself, however, listed only the nonexistent statute,” Sannes added. “The parties have not raised this issue, and the Defendant has not challenged this warrant, so the Court has not considered it.”
Although the judge did not base her suppression ruling solely on this error, her observation sharply criticized how DHS and its investigative offices managed the situation. Search warrants are fundamental tools for law enforcement, and courts expect the legal authority behind them to be accurate.
The case began in early 2025 when CBP and HSI received anonymous tips stating that Nutrition Bar Confectioners knowingly hired undocumented workers at its facility. Records from the New York State Labor Department later revealed that 134 employees used Social Security numbers that were not assigned to them, belonged to deceased U.S. citizens, or were otherwise invalid, according to court documents.
Investigators also found that the company did not participate in E-Verify, the federal system that allows employers to verify if workers are authorized to work in the United States.
Still, Sannes determined that the way the agents conducted the raid violated constitutional rights. Her ruling stated that officers effectively detained all employees inside the factory instead of limiting their actions to the narrower scope defined in the warrant. This overreach led her to suppress crucial evidence obtained during the operation.
The decision now brings new scrutiny to DHS under Noem, who took over the department during a strong push for immigration enforcement. While the raid occurred before her tenure, the ruling highlights the challenges DHS faces when enforcement actions conflict with courtroom standards.
Errors in warrant applications can have serious consequences because the Constitution does not allow for mistakes when the government seeks permission to search, seize, and detain persons of interest.
In this case, the judge clearly expressed her concerns about the paperwork. A nonexistent statute listed as the only legal basis for a warrant stood out even in a ruling focused on Fourth Amendment violations. For Noem’s DHS, it’s another case of their strong commitment to enforcement while making basic mistakes along the way, and even a little footnote can carry significant weight.
