Rep. Ilhan Omar has contested the lawfulness of a federal search carried out at her home earlier in the week, calling for the return of property taken by agents during the operation.
On Friday, lawyers for Omar delivered a formal letter — later obtained by a news outlet — to federal prosecutors at the Justice Department, arguing that the investigation into the congresswoman constitutes constitutionally prohibited retaliation against a sitting legislative voice who has openly opposed the administration, and that it places the separation of powers under strain. In a separate development, people familiar with the matter said investigators carried out a broad search of Omar's home in the Washington, DC area as part of an inquiry touching on immigration-related allegations, possible false statements in government filings, and a potential conspiracy charge tied to the congresswoman.
On Monday morning, agents carried out a court-approved search warrant — one that a federal magistrate judge had authorised with conditions placing boundaries on how the Justice Department could handle the documents found.
In the letter to federal prosecutors, attorneys Amy Jeffress and Joshua Matz argued on Omar's behalf that her naturalisation in 2000, following her departure from Somalia in 1995, left no lawful grounds for any allegation that she had breached the terms governing her citizenship. A request was also put forward that any video and audio footage captured by federal agents throughout the search be kept intact.
No comment came from Justice Department representatives when contacted about the allegations put forward by Omar's legal team.
Defence lawyers for Omar raised procedural objections to the manner in which the search of her home had been carried out. Notification of the search reached the House of Representatives' Office of General Counsel only after the matter had already been reported publicly, people with knowledge of the situation said.
According to the letter, a Washington-based judge had put in place specific procedural requirements covering notification to the House, to Omar, and to her legal team, all tied to her constitutional standing as a sitting member of Congress. Lawyers representing Omar told the court that investigators may have stepped outside the boundaries set by the judge, potentially placing the congresswoman's constitutional protections at risk.
According to the letter, no representative from the US attorney's office or the Justice Department was on hand during the search to inform Omar of her protections under the Speech or Debate Clause; a waiver was placed before her instead, which she chose not to sign. Defence lawyers for Omar additionally raised the claim that they were given no chance to review or set aside materials falling under the clause's protection.
Court documents filed by Omar's defence attorneys described the search as grounded in a theory that had lost standing among investigators over time, and pointed out that the operation was carried out less than three weeks before election day — a gap the lawyers contended placed the action at odds with longstanding Justice Department practice of stepping back from such activities close to a vote, so as not to give the appearance that prosecutorial decisions were shaped by electoral politics.
Questions about whether the investigation and search — conducted ahead of the election — were driven by political considerations have been raised by observers on multiple sides. The letter, whose initial disclosure came through a broadcast outlet, contained the signatories' position that the search lacked both legal grounding and proper authorisation.
Jeffress and Matz pointed out that the search warrant documents referred to Omar by her first name throughout, and they urged agents to address the congresswoman by her full title in any future proceedings.
