This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit michaelfanone.substack.com

For most Americans, the front door is still supposed to mean something. It’s the last line the Constitution draws between you and the power of the state. A knock is one thing. Crossing the threshold without a judge’s approval is something else entirely.

That line may be eroding.

A newly disclosed whistleblower complaint raises serious questions about how Immigration and Customs Enforcement is now operating behind closed doors. For decades, even ICE acknowledged a basic legal reality: paperwork signed inside the agency is not the same as a warrant signed by a judge. That distinction mattered, because the Fourth Amendment demands independent review before the government enters a private home.

According to this complaint, that long-standing guardrail has quietly shifted. Not through Congress. Not through the courts. Through internal policy.

This isn’t a technical debate about immigration enforcement. It’s about who gets to decide when constitutional protections apply—and when they don’t. If an agency can replace judicial oversight with its own authorization, the safeguard isn’t weakened. It’s bypassed.

Combine that with what we’ve already seen—conflicting official narratives, whistleblowers stepping forward, people harmed while in custody—and this stops being theoretical. It becomes a warning.

Before you see the clip that explains how this change was justified, understand what’s at stake. If constitutional limits become optional, they don’t just disappear for one group. They disappear for everyone.

Subscribe to make sure this doesn’t happen in silence.

Your support keeps this show growing, keeps us on the road, and keeps these stories from getting buried.

🟧 Paid subscribers get 15% off your next merch order🟧 Founding Members get 20% off for life

You’ll get the link in your welcome email.

👉 Become a paid subscriber today.

GET DISCOUNTS BELOW! ENJOY!