Julie Johnson Accuses Noem of Breaking the Rule of Law

The Constitutional Guardrails of Enforcement: Unpacking Julie Johnson’s Exchange with DHS

What happens when the “rule of law” is invoked to justify actions that appear to bypass the law itself?

In a recent and high-stakes committee hearing, Congresswoman Julie Johnson issued a blistering critique of Homeland Security Secretary Kristy Noom. Her argument wasn’t merely a political disagreement; it was a clinical examination of how the American legal system is allegedly being hollowed out from the inside.

The tension in the room was a reflection of a deeper national anxiety: the fear that constitutional protections—once considered absolute—are becoming conditional based on rhetoric and policy.

1. The Bedrock of the Rule of Law: Probable Cause and Due Process

Johnson centered her testimony on two pillars of American jurisprudence that protect individuals from the arbitrary use of state power.

Probable Cause: Derived from the Fourth Amendment, this requires that law enforcement have a reasonable basis—founded on facts and evidence—to believe a person has committed a crime before an arrest is made. Johnson argued that “snatching somebody walking into a coffee shop because of the color of their skin” is a direct violation of this standard.

Due Process: Found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, this ensures that once an individual is in custody, they are entitled to a fair legal process, including timely hearings and the right to see a judge. Johnson alleged that many are being held “for days and days on end” without these fundamental hearings.

2. The Gap Between Rhetoric and Reality

A central theme of Johnson’s critique was the discrepancy between the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) public messaging and the data on the ground.

Secretary Noom has frequently testified that enforcement is focused on “serious threats” to national security. However, Johnson presented data from an ICE facility outside of Dallas that tells a different story:

Metric
DHS Claim
Observed Reality (per Rep. Johnson)

Targeting Priority
Focus on serious criminal/terror threats.
70% classified as “lowest threat level.”

Criminal History
Removing dangerous criminals.
Many detainees have zero criminal record.

Legal Justification
Strict adherence to law.
Arrests allegedly based on appearance/skin color.

3. The Human Cost: When Citizens Are Detained

The most startling evidence Johnson brought to the floor involved a poster highlighting three U.S. citizens who were arrested by ICE.

According to her testimony, these individuals identified themselves as citizens, yet were allegedly subjected to physical assault and prolonged detention. One case cited an older gentleman who suffered broken ribs and a brain injury after being knocked to the ground by agents.

From a legal standpoint, detaining a citizen without cause is more than a mistake; it is a profound constitutional breach. It suggests a breakdown in the verification systems designed to prevent the state from turning its enforcement mechanisms against its own people.

4. Leadership, Accountability, and “Bad Actors”

Johnson made a careful distinction: she acknowledged that many Border Patrol and ICE agents are professionals doing a difficult job lawfully. However, she pointed to a systemic failure to “rein in” bad actors.

The Problem: Officers exceeding their authority or using “outrageous intimidation.”

The Leadership Failure: A lack of intervention from the FBI or DHS leadership to discipline or overcorrect misconduct.

The Result: A total breakdown of trust between the American people and the agencies meant to protect them.

5. Oversight and the Silent Treatment

Finally, Johnson highlighted a growing frustration in Congress: the lack of responsiveness from the executive branch. She noted that multiple letters and formal inquiries from lawmakers have gone unresponded to.

In a democracy, oversight is the mechanism by which the people ensure their government remains within its legal bounds. When an agency ignores the legislature, it effectively signals that it views itself as unaccountable.

Conclusion: Safety vs. Liberty?

Congresswoman Johnson’s message was a warning against the “false choice” between national security and civil liberties. Her argument is that national security is weakened, not strengthened, when the law is ignored. When the public no longer trusts that law enforcement will follow the Constitution, the legitimacy of the entire system begins to erode.

As this debate continues, the fundamental question remains: Are the constitutional guardrails high enough to withstand the pressure of modern political rhetoric?