(MAINE) — Everyone in the United States—citizens and noncitizens alike—has constitutional rights during immigration enforcement encounters, including the right to remain silent and the right to refuse a home entry without a warrant in most situations.
In Maine, those rights have taken on renewed urgency after DHS and ICE publicly announced Operation Catch of the Day, a statewide enforcement action.
This guide explains the core legal protections that apply during stops, home encounters, detention, and immigration court proceedings, and how to assert them without escalating risk.
It also separates what is confirmed from what remains allegation or rhetoric, because press statements often omit the due process steps that follow an arrest.
1) Overview of Operation Catch of the Day
DHS and ICE describe Operation Catch of the Day as a federal enforcement surge in Maine focused on identifying, arresting, and detaining certain noncitizens for removal proceedings.
In operational terms, “targeting” can include investigative work, surveillance, database checks, attempted arrests in public, and arrests at or near residences, workplaces, or during local criminal custody releases.
A key detail for Maine residents: the operation’s start date and the public announcement date were not the same. This is common.
Agencies may begin field activity before issuing a press release. That lag can fuel rumors and complicate verification for families trying to locate someone after an arrest.
This rights guide is written for a fast-moving situation. Facts may change as court records appear, attorneys file challenges, and officials release more information.
If you or a loved one is approached, your safest approach is typically to assert rights calmly, document what happened, and seek legal advice quickly.
2) Official statements and key figures (what’s confirmed vs. what’s alleged)
DHS and ICE have issued public statements describing the purpose of Operation Catch of the Day and released early enforcement figures.
Those figures are best read as snapshots, not final accounting. In immigration enforcement, terminology matters.
- “Targets identified” usually means people ICE has flagged for possible enforcement. It does not mean each person is removable, arrested, or even correctly identified.
- “Arrests” means taken into custody. It does not establish guilt of any crime.
- “Detained” means held in immigration custody. Detention can be mandatory in some categories, but many people may request release on bond or parole depending on facts.
- “Removed” means physically deported. Removal typically follows a final order or expedited process. It is not the same as an arrest.
ICE has also publicized some named arrests with alleged criminal histories. Public identification can shape public perception, but it should not substitute for court records.
Immigration status, criminal dispositions, and removability often turn on details that are not in press releases. A conviction label can also be misleading, because immigration consequences depend on the statutory definition and the sentence imposed.
See, for example, the “categorical approach” framework in Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (2013), which limits when certain convictions trigger removal consequences.
What readers should take from early numbers and names is narrower: ICE is asserting broad scope, and it is signaling priorities.
Due process questions—notice, counsel access, bond, and hearing scheduling—usually come later, in immigration court filings and custody reviews.
Warning: Do not assume someone is “illegal” or “a criminal” based on a public claim. Ask for documents, case numbers, and the next hearing date. Verify through counsel and EOIR records.
3) Political response: Gov. Janet Mills vs. Sen. Susan Collins
Operation Catch of the Day has triggered a sharp split between Governor Janet Mills and Senator Susan Collins, reflecting both legal-process concerns and policy oversight debates.
Governor Mills’ stated concerns have centered on warrants, real-time transparency, and oversight expectations.
- Warrants and whether agents are using judicial warrants for entries and arrests.
- Real-time transparency, including public accounting of arrests and where people are held.
- Oversight expectations, including how federal action affects public trust and community stability.
Senator Collins’ stated concerns have focused on enforcement authority and operational safeguards.
- The baseline point that enforcement against certain noncitizens with criminal records is authorized under federal law.
- Protections for lawful residents, meaning operational safeguards to reduce mistaken arrests.
- Operational safeguards like body cameras and de-escalation training, and urging protesters not to interfere.
Why political statements matter for residents is practical, not theoretical. Oversight pressure can affect what data is released and how agencies coordinate with local law enforcement.
But political disagreement does not change the underlying constitutional floor: ICE must still follow the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and noncitizens retain due process rights in removal proceedings.
4) Significance and legal/policy context in Maine (including LD 1971)
Enforcement surges often become louder in election years. The debate can intensify, but the legal standards usually do not.
ICE’s authority to arrest and detain stems from federal statutes, including INA § 287 (arrest and search authority) and detention provisions in INA § 236 and INA § 241.
Removal grounds arise under INA § 212 (inadmissibility) and INA § 237 (deportability), depending on status and entry history.
In Maine, the operation is also being discussed alongside LD 1971, a state law scheduled to take effect in July 2026 that limits local law enforcement participation in immigration-only investigations.
Laws like LD 1971 typically address cooperation choices, such as whether local police will hold someone solely for ICE, share information, or assist in operations.
They do not remove ICE’s federal authority, and they do not create immigration status.
Judicial warrants vs. administrative immigration warrants
This distinction is at the core of many disputes.
- A judicial warrant is issued by a judge or magistrate. It is tied to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant process.
- An administrative immigration warrant (often on Forms I-200 or I-205) is signed by an immigration officer, not a judge.
In many home-entry situations, ICE generally needs consent or a judicial warrant to enter a private home. An administrative immigration warrant alone is often not enough to compel entry into a home without consent.
This is why public officials stress “judicial warrants” when discussing home encounters.
National enforcement claims can provide context, including DHS statements about large deportation numbers. But those national figures do not prove what will occur in Maine.
The best predictor for an individual case remains the person’s status, history, and charges, plus the local court and detention setting.
Warning: Do not open the door just because someone says “ICE” or slides a paper under the door. Ask to see a warrant through a window or to have it photographed. Look for a judge’s name and signature.
5) Impact on affected communities (Portland, Lewiston, and beyond)
Reports from advocates and community organizations in Portland, Lewiston, and other areas describe fear, disrupted routines, and decreased trust.
Those effects can occur even when only a subset of people are arrested, because enforcement visibility can change community behavior quickly.
Common ripple effects include parents keeping children home from school and workers avoiding jobs or commuting routes.
- Parents keeping children home from school.
- Workers avoiding jobs or commuting routes.
- People avoiding hospitals, shelters, and public events.
- Victims and witnesses hesitating to report crimes.
Collateral impact is not limited to undocumented residents. U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents in mixed-status families may face sudden caregiving gaps, income loss, and urgent documentation stress.
Lawful residents can also face enforcement attention if ICE believes a conviction triggers removability. Some convictions do. Many do not. The analysis is technical and depends on statute and record of conviction.
Advocacy groups often advise three practical steps: get screened by a qualified lawyer, make a family preparedness plan, and control rumors by relying on primary sources.
Those are generally sound steps, but each person should tailor decisions to their risks. For example, traveling to Canada, renewing a visa, or filing an application may create interactions with federal databases.
Those interactions are not automatically dangerous, but they should be planned with counsel when enforcement is active.
The core rights at issue—and who has them
A) The right to remain silent (and to not self-incriminate)
Who has it: Everyone in the U.S., including undocumented people, visitors, students, and lawful permanent residents.
Legal basis: Fifth Amendment; also reflected in immigration proceedings through due process principles. Note that removal proceedings are civil, but statements can still be used against you.
How to exercise it:
- Say: “I am going to remain silent.”
- Do not answer questions about where you were born or how you entered.
- Do not provide false documents or false statements. That can create criminal exposure.
Common ways it is lost: Talking “to clear things up,” signing statements you did not read, or handing over documents that establish alienage without advice.
B) The right to refuse consent to a home search or entry
Who has it: Everyone with control over the space, including roommates and family members.
Legal basis: Fourth Amendment. Consent is a major exception to warrant requirements.
How to exercise it:
- Speak through the door if possible.
- Say: “I do not consent to entry.”
- Ask: “Do you have a judicial warrant signed by a judge?”
Common ways it is lost: Opening the door wide, stepping back silently, or saying “okay” while confused or scared.
C) The right to an attorney in removal proceedings (but usually not at government expense)
Who has it: Noncitizens in removal proceedings.
Legal basis: INA § 292; 8 C.F.R. § 1240.10(a)(1)-(3) (notice of the right to counsel and list of free/low-cost providers). The government generally does not appoint counsel in immigration court, with limited exceptions.
How to exercise it:
- Ask for time to find counsel at the first hearing.
- Do not accept voluntary departure or stipulated removal without advice.
- Request the list of legal services providers.
Common ways it is lost: Missing hearings, agreeing to removal, or signing papers under pressure.
Deadline: Missing an immigration court hearing can lead to an in absentia removal order. Motions to reopen have strict time limits. Get legal help immediately if you missed a hearing.
D) Due process in detention and bond procedures
Who has it: Many detained noncitizens, though some categories face mandatory detention. Rules can vary by circuit and by detention posture.
Legal basis: INA § 236; 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1. Constitutional due process under the Fifth Amendment. Supreme Court detention limits and procedures are complex; see Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 131 (2018).
How to exercise it:
- Ask for a bond hearing if eligible.
- Gather proof of residence, family ties, work history, and any immigration filings.
- Request medical care in writing if needed.
Common ways it is lost: Waiting too long to request bond, not presenting documents, or agreeing to removal to “get out” without understanding consequences.
What to do if you believe your rights were violated
- Write down everything immediately. Date, time, location, badge names, vehicle numbers, and witnesses.
- Preserve evidence. Save voicemails, texts, doorbell video, and photos of any paperwork.
- Find the person in custody. Ask where they are held and request the A-number. Use EOIR’s automated case system if you have the A-number (see resources below).
- Contact an attorney fast. Claims involving unlawful entry, coercion, or mistaken identity are time-sensitive and fact-driven.
- File complaints where appropriate. DHS has an Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL), and ICE has an Office of Professional Responsibility processes. An attorney can help assess what is strategic.
Warning: Do not physically interfere with officers, even if you believe the stop is unlawful. The safer course is to remain silent, document, and challenge later through counsel.
6) Official government sources and how to verify updates
When names or numbers circulate, verify using primary sources and case records where available.
- DHS and ICE press releases: Start with DHS and ICE official websites.
- Immigration court case status: EOIR’s automated case information is at https://acis.eoir.justice.gov.
- Congressional statements: Members often post statements on official .gov sites. These may reflect oversight concerns, not court findings.
- What to save: Any Notice to Appear (NTA), custody paperwork, bond paperwork, and the person’s A-number. Track hearing dates and detention facility contacts.
Rumors spread quickly during enforcement surges. If you cannot confirm a claim through documents, counsel, or an official source, treat it as unverified and avoid reposting it.
Resources for legal help
– AILA Lawyer Referral: AILA Lawyer Referral
– EOIR Immigration Court information: EOIR Immigration Court information
⚖️ Legal Disclaimer: This article provides general information about immigration law and is not legal advice. Immigration cases are highly fact-specific, and laws vary by jurisdiction. Consult a qualified immigration attorney for advice about your specific situation.
