Attorneys representing US Representative Ilhan Omar have accused the Justice Department of failing to comply with protocols established by a federal magistrate judge to protect the congresswoman’s constitutional and legislative privileges during a search of her Washington, D.C., home.
In a letter dated October 16, Omar’s lawyers, Amy Jeffress and Joshua Matz, demanded the immediate return of property seized during the search and asked the Justice Department to preserve all audio and video recordings connected to the operation.
The attorneys also accused federal investigators of disregarding safeguards intended to protect information covered by Omar’s legislative privilege.
“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,” they wrote in the letter reviewed by CBS News.
The Justice Department rejected the allegations. A department spokesperson described the letter as being “riddled with false allegations and inaccuracies.”
“Our attorneys and law enforcement partners complied with all court orders and legal obligations, as they always do,” the spokesperson said. “Leaking a letter to the press right after sending it is not good faith. It is a publicity play.”
Homeland Security Investigations agents searched Omar’s residence on Monday as part of a broader criminal investigation into her family’s immigration history and allegations involving possible fraud and false statements in immigration documents.
Omar’s personal cellphone was among the items taken during the search, while grand jury subpoenas had reportedly been issued to some of her relatives days before the operation.
The search warrant had been presented to a magistrate judge in the US District Court roughly a week before investigators carried it out. Court records and discussions between prosecutors and the judge reportedly showed concerns over whether the warrant adequately protected Omar’s legislative privileges under the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause.
The concerns were linked to a 2007 ruling involving the United States v. Rayburn House Office Building case. The D.C. Circuit Court held that when authorities search the premises of a sitting member of Congress as part of a criminal investigation, the executive branch cannot examine seized material covered by legislative privilege without first allowing the member to screen the material.
Prosecutors initially argued that the protections did not apply because the search was conducted at Omar’s private residence rather than her congressional office, according to CBS News.
In their latest letter, Omar’s attorneys alleged that investigators failed to follow several requirements set by the judge.
They claimed, among other things, that HSI agents were required to notify both Omar and the House of Representatives Office of General Counsel when the warrant was executed but failed to do so.
The lawyers also alleged that agents prevented Omar from contacting her attorney for more than an hour after the search began. According to the letter, Omar and her legal counsel were supposed to receive a copy of the warrant at the beginning of the operation.
The timing of the search and the issuance of grand jury subpoenas have also attracted scrutiny from former federal prosecutors, particularly because the investigation involves a sitting member of Congress and took place close to an election.
Justice Department guidelines generally instruct prosecutors and agents to avoid overt investigative actions that could influence an election or create an advantage or disadvantage for a candidate.
Omar’s attorneys cited those concerns in their letter, stating: “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. But the political motivations behind this pre-election investigation and search are clear as day. For the reasons given above, this search was neither justified nor lawful.”
Omar has frequently been criticised by President Donald Trump and his political allies. Trump has also made comments about her Somali background and religion and has repeatedly alleged that she committed immigration-related fraud.
“There is no legitimate basis for any suggestion that she has violated any law concerning her citizenship status,” Omar’s attorneys wrote, describing the investigation as arising from “a years-old, tired conspiracy theory concerning conduct stretching back decades.”
The case has also drawn attention following comments by Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, who discussed aspects of the investigation publicly during a podcast interview on Friday.
Speaking with Andrew Kolvet, host of “The Charlie Kirk Show,” Mullin said multiple warrants had been executed on Monday. He added that a judge had authorised the operation and that investigators expected to take their evidence before a grand jury.
Federal officials typically avoid discussing ongoing criminal investigations in detail beyond confirming that court-authorised searches have taken place, partly because of due process requirements and grand jury secrecy rules.
