Ilhan Omar’s lawyers demand the return of property seized in house raid

SaveSharefacebookxwhatsapp-strokecopylinkHomeland Security officers carry boxes from the Washington, DC residence of US Representative Ilhan Omar, Monday, October 12, 2026, during a search [J Scott Applewhite/AP]By Al Jazeera Staff and APPublished On 17 Oct 202617 Oct 2026Lawyers for Democratic United States Representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota have demanded the return of property seized in a federal raid of her Washington, DC home, accusing the US Department of Justice of conducting a politically motivated investigation and failing to follow judicial instructions during the search.“The political motivations behind this pre-election investigation and search are clear as day,” Omar’s lawyers wrote in a letter sent to federal prosecutors on Friday and obtained by The Associated Press news agency. “This search was neither justified nor lawful.”Recommended Stories list of 3 itemslist 1 of 3Ilhan Omar says she ‘will not be silenced’ after US agents raid her homelist 2 of 3Why has search of Ilhan Omar’s home before US midterms caused controversy?list 3 of 3Trump administration seeks to strip Ilhan Omar of US citizenship: WSJend of listIn the letter, Omar’s lawyers, Amy Jeffress and Joshua Matz, challenged an investigation into her immigration history, saying there was “no legitimate basis for any suggestion that she has violated any law concerning her citizenship status”.The letter accuses federal agents of threatening the separation of powers and failing to comply with a magistrate judge’s instructions for the search of Omar’s northeast Washington home on Monday.Federal agents searched Omar’s home on Monday as part of an investigation into alleged immigration fraud. Authorities seized her phone and passport, and have issued more than a dozen grand jury subpoenas, including to some of her relatives, according to The Washington Post. Her lawyers also asked authorities to preserve audio and video recordings from the search.Omar’s lawyers claim that investigators did not provide a copy of the warrant to them in advance, nor did they contact the House of Representatives’ Office of General Counsel, which disregarded the magistrate judge’s orders. The notice would have allowed Omar to seek legal counsel and potentially leverage legislation that could have challenged the warrant.Her lawyers said the procedures outlined by the judge are intended to protect Omar’s constitutional rights as a sitting member of Congress, and safeguard against the seizure of materials related to her legislative work.Her lawyers also argued that the investigation was politically motivated due to its proximity to the November midterm elections.“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,” they wrote. The Justice Department rejected the accusations, describing the letter as “riddled with false allegations and inaccuracies”.“Our attorneys and law enforcement partners complied with all court orders and legal obligations, as they always do,” Justice Department spokesperson Emily Covington said.Omar became a naturalised US citizen in 2000 after fleeing Somalia with her family as a child, according to her House biography. She has repeatedly rejected allegations by conservative critics about her immigration status, which was also probed in 2019 during Trump’s first administration.Omar’s lawyers have requested records relating to the 2019 inquiry into her immigration history. The former investigation found insufficient evidence of wrongdoing to warrant a full investigation, according to The Washington Post.The scope of the current investigation remains unclear.The search took place days after Trump attacked Omar at a rally in Tennessee, describing her home country as a place of “crime and squalor” and suggesting that Vice President JD Vance and others were investigating her. Hours after the search, Trump denied any involvement, telling reporters the matter was “really up to the DOJ”.