Omar's Lawyers Say DOJ Broke a Judge's Order During the Search of Her Home

Attorneys for Rep. Ilhan Omar accused the Justice Department on Friday of violating a magistrate judge's order by failing to follow protocols meant to protect her constitutional interests as a member of Congress during the search of her home in Washington, D.C. In an Oct. 16 letter, her lawyers, Amy Jeffress and Joshua Matz, asked the government to return the congresswoman's property immediately and to preserve all video and audio recordings of the search.

"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," the lawyers wrote in the letter, which CBS News reviewed. A Justice Department spokesperson disputed the claims, saying the letter was "riddled with false allegations and inaccuracies." The spokesperson added: "Our attorneys and law enforcement partners complied with all court orders and legal obligations, as they always do." The spokesperson called the letter's release "a publicity play."

Agents from Homeland Security Investigations executed the search warrant at Omar's home on Monday as part of a sprawling criminal investigation into her family's history, looking for evidence of possible fraud and false statements in immigration paperwork. Her personal cellphone was among the materials seized, CBS News previously reported. Grand jury subpoenas were also issued just days before the search to some of her family members.

The warrant was first presented to a magistrate judge in U.S. District Court about a week before it was carried out. CBS News reported that prosecutors and the judge went back and forth at length after the judge raised concerns that the warrant included no protocols to protect Omar's legislative privileges under the Speech or Debate Clause. Those protections trace to a 2007 D.C. Circuit decision, United States v. Rayburn House Office Building, which held that in a criminal investigation of a sitting member of Congress, the executive branch cannot review seized information without first letting the member screen it for legislative privilege. Prosecutors initially argued the case should not apply because the search targeted her home rather than her congressional office.

Omar's lawyers say several of the judge's requirements were broken. Agents were supposed to notify both Omar and the House Office of General Counsel when the warrant was executed, a step her attorneys say never happened. The letter also alleges that agents kept her from contacting her lawyer for more than an hour after the search began, even though she and her counsel were supposed to receive a copy of the warrant at the outset.

The timing has drawn scrutiny. Veteran former prosecutors have noted that such overt steps against a sitting member of Congress so close to an election appear to conflict with internal Justice Department guidelines, which say prosecutors and agents should avoid investigative moves that could influence an election's outcome. Omar's attorneys made the same point. "Historically, the Department has refrained from this type of investigative activity so close to an election," they wrote, adding that "the political motivations behind this pre-election investigation and search are clear as day."

The letter calls the case a "years-old, tired conspiracy theory concerning conduct stretching back decades" and says there is "no legitimate basis for any suggestion that she has violated any law concerning her citizenship status." Omar has long been a target of President Trump and his allies, who have repeatedly accused her of immigration fraud and made derogatory comments about her Somali heritage and her religion.

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin also spoke publicly about the investigation on Friday, calling it a "strong case" in an interview with Andrew Kolvet, host of "The Charlie Kirk Show." Mullin volunteered that multiple warrants had been served Monday, that a judge had authorized the action, and that investigators expected to present their case to a grand jury. Federal officials rarely discuss ongoing criminal investigations beyond confirming a court-authorized search, in part because of due process protections and grand jury secrecy rules.