Attorney General Pam Bondi was supposed to defend the Constitution.
But she just sided with the government against your most basic rights.
And Pam Bondi crossed one red line that has Clarence Thomas ready to revolt.
The Trump Administration is fighting a Supreme Court case that could destroy the Fourth Amendment’s protection of your home.
Pam Bondi’s Department of Justice just told the Supreme Court that police don’t need a warrant to break into your house as long as they claim they’re “helping” you.
Read that again.
Your home – the one place the Founding Fathers said government agents couldn’t enter without permission from a judge – can now be invaded anytime police decide they’re worried about your welfare.
The case involves William Trevor Case, whose ex-girlfriend called police claiming he was suicidal after a bad breakup.
Officers spent nearly an hour outside his Montana home, walking around the property and shining flashlights through windows.
They discussed calling his relatives or reaching him directly.
Instead, they grabbed rifles and a ballistic shield, smashed through his door without a warrant, and shot him when he pulled back a closet curtain in his own bedroom.
Case survived but now faces criminal charges based on evidence seized during the warrantless invasion of his home.
Bondi rewrites the Constitution to let police invade homes at will
Here’s what should terrify every American about Bondi’s position.
The Montana Supreme Court ruled police only needed “reasonable suspicion” – not a warrant, not probable cause, just a hunch – that someone might need help.¹
That standard is so low it makes the Fourth Amendment meaningless.
The Founding Fathers wrote the Fourth Amendment specifically to stop this kind of government abuse.
They required probable cause and judicial approval before agents could enter your home.
Not because getting warrants is hard – it isn’t.
A Harvard Law Review study found 93% of warrants get approved on first submission, often in less than three minutes.²
Police can draft and submit warrant requests from their phones today.
The Montana officers had nearly an hour to get a warrant while they prowled around Case’s property.
They chose not to bother with constitutional niceties.
The Supreme Court dealt with this exact issue four years ago in Caniglia v. Strom.
Every single justice – all nine of them – ruled that Fourth Amendment protections don’t disappear just because police claim they’re trying to help.³
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the Constitution draws a clear line against police entering homes without warrants under vague “caretaking” justifications.
That was 2021. Unanimous. Recent precedent.
Body camera footage shows the Montana officers themselves doubted Case needed urgent help.
One admitted “chances are pretty slim” he required immediate medical attention.⁴
They talked about staging medical personnel outside but decided against it.
After 40 minutes of standing around, they suddenly declared an “emergency” and broke in.
Bondi sides with police state over American citizens
Pam Bondi’s brief argues police shouldn’t need probable cause or warrants when they’re “providing aid” rather than investigating crimes.⁵
That position opens a door that can never be closed.
Think about what this means for you personally.
Your neighbor hasn’t seen you in a few days and calls for a welfare check because you didn’t pick up your newspaper.
Police show up claiming they’re “caretakers” and enter without a warrant.
You hear strangers breaking into your house and come out to defend your home.
Officers see you’re armed and open fire.
This isn’t a hypothetical scenario – it’s exactly what happened to William Trevor Case in Montana.
And Pam Bondi wants the Supreme Court to rule that conduct is perfectly constitutional.
Anyone who owns a firearm and keeps it in their home for protection should be furious about this case.
The right to defend your home means nothing if police can barge in without a warrant anytime someone calls about a “concern.”
What transforms armed strangers entering your house into lawful police action is the warrant requirement.
Strip that away, and government agents have no more constitutional authority to enter your home than any other person with a gun.
Gun Owners of America condemned Bondi’s position as a betrayal of constitutional principles and an invitation to abuse.⁶
Every patriotic American who believes in limited government should be equally outraged.
Bondi betrays everything Trump promised about government overreach
President Trump campaigned on protecting constitutional rights and ending government tyranny.
He promised to defend the Second Amendment and crack down on Deep State abuse of power.
Pam Bondi backing warrantless home invasions is the exact opposite of everything Trump ran on.
The facts couldn’t be worse for the government’s position.
Police had 40 minutes to get a warrant. They admitted there probably wasn’t an emergency. They shot a man in his own home after breaking in without judicial approval.
Now Bondi wants the Supreme Court to bless that conduct.
For her to argue against a unanimous 2021 Supreme Court decision protecting homes isn’t just bad law.
It’s a betrayal of the American people who voted for Trump to stop exactly this kind of government overreach.
Conservative legal groups are lining up against Bondi’s position.
The Montana Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers warns the lower standard makes everyone less safe – both citizens and police.⁷
“How can an officer say we need to actually enter your home to get more information?” attorney Kufere Laing asked.
The question hanging over this case is the obvious one: why didn’t police just get a warrant?
They had time. They had technology. Judges approve 93% of these requests in minutes.
The only reason not to get a warrant is knowing a judge would say no.
That’s exactly when the Fourth Amendment exists – to protect you from government agents who want to search your home but know they can’t justify it to a neutral magistrate.
If the Supreme Court accepts Bondi’s reasoning, the Fourth Amendment becomes worthless.
Police will simply claim every search is about “helping” rather than investigating, and your constitutional protection against unreasonable searches vanishes.
Your home stops being your castle and becomes just another place government agents can enter whenever they feel like it.
That’s not the America the Founders created.
And it’s not the America President Trump promised to restore.
Pam Bondi needs to withdraw this brief and start defending the Constitution instead of shredding it.
¹ Case v. Montana, Montana Supreme Court (2024).
² Harvard Law Review, “Warrant Approval Study” (2024).
³ Caniglia v. Strom, 593 U.S. 194 (2021).
⁴ Gun Owners of America, “Case v. Montana Body Camera Analysis” (October 2025).
⁵ Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Respondent, Case v. Montana, No. 24-624 (2025).
⁶ Gun Owners of America, Official Statement (October 2025).
⁷ Montana Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers Brief, Case v. Montana (2025).
