DOJ Backs Warrantless Home Searches in New Supreme Court Gun Rights Case

When federal lawyers argue that police can break into your home without a warrant “to help,” gun owners should pay attention.

That’s the warning from Phil Reboli of Gun Owners of America (GOA), who uses the Supreme Court case Case v. Montana to explain how the Department of Justice (DOJ) is now urging the Court to bless a lower standard for entering homes – one he says collides with both the Fourth Amendment and the realities of lawful gun ownership.

Reboli’s message isn’t subtle: if the DOJ’s position wins, routine “welfare checks” could become door-kicking raids based on little more than a hunch.

And in his telling, that’s exactly what happened to the man at the center of this case.

The Case That Could Rewrite Home Privacy

According to Phil Reboli, William Trevor Case became the focus of a “welfare check” after an argument with his ex-girlfriend. She called police, worried he might harm himself.

Reboli notes that when she warned Case she’d call the cops, he responded that anyone coming to his home would be met with resistance – hardly the tone of someone inviting a “caretaking” visit.

Police arrived, circled the house, peered through windows, and, by their own account, spent roughly 40 minutes outside before forcing entry. No warrant. No consent. No probable cause, Reboli stresses.

Inside, they shot Case. He survived.

For Reboli, the timeline matters. If officers truly feared imminent harm, why wait nearly an hour? If they had time, why not seek a warrant? He points to modern warrant processes – telephonic and electronic – that can be measured in minutes, not hours.

What Happened Outside That Door

Reboli cites detailed transcripts from the scene.

Officers said they could see into “most of the rooms.” They saw an empty holster and scribbled notes they speculated might be a suicide letter. They saw empty beer cans. They talked about Case’s history.

Then they upped the posture: retreating to cars to grab rifles and a ballistic shield. They discussed whether to “stage medical” in case of a self-inflicted wound – only to admit they thought the chances of urgent medical need were “pretty slim.”

Reboli highlights an important missed step: officers considered calling Case, his ex, or his father, then didn’t call anyone. Instead, they kicked in the door and labeled it a “protective sweep.”

When Case confronted the intrusion, officers later said he “gritted his teeth,” looked aggressive, and they thought they saw a gun. They shot him, and a gun was found nearby in a laundry hamper.

To Reboli, these facts don’t scream “exigent circumstances.” They read like a tactical escalation built on reasonable suspicion, not probable cause – and that distinction is everything in Fourth Amendment law.

DOJ’s Position: Aid Today, Warrant Tomorrow?

Here’s where Reboli says the alarm bells should really ring.

The Montana Supreme Court upheld the entry under a low standard – reasonable suspicion that Case might need aid. Reboli argues that’s a dangerous downgrade from probable cause, especially inside the home, where constitutional protections are at their peak.

And then came the DOJ.

Rather than pumping the brakes, Reboli says the DOJ filed an amicus brief supporting Montana, arguing that when police are providing “aid” rather than searching for evidence or suspects, probable cause and a warrant aren’t required.

Reboli calls that logic a rerun of the “community caretaking” theory the Supreme Court unanimously rejected in Caniglia v. Strom (2021). 

In that case, the Court held there’s no free-floating caretaking exception for home entries. Police can act under true exigency – imminent injury or death – but not under a mushy, all-purpose “we’re just helping” banner.

In Case v. Montana, Reboli says DOJ tries to rebrand caretaking under a new label: emergency aid without the traditional exigency threshold. The risk, in his view, is obvious – “welfare check” becomes a back door to warrantless home invasions.

Why Gun Owners Should Care

Reboli ties the Fourth Amendment to the Second.

If the government can lower the entry standard to the home, the very place you store your firearms, then lawful gun owners are placed at heightened risk. When police break in with guns drawn and meet a startled homeowner who is also armed, tragedy happens. 

Reboli invokes cases like Brian Malinowski in Arkansas and Quinn v. Texas to underscore the stakes.

He also flags what he sees as doctrinal drift. In United States v. Jones and Florida v. Jardines, the Supreme Court emphasized property rights and trespass principles alongside privacy analysis. 

To Reboli, the Montana ruling – and DOJ’s brief – “interest-balance” away those property protections, much like courts tried to “balance” away the right recognized in Heller before the Supreme Court stepped in.

His point: if courts can balance away the home’s sanctity to make policing easier, what stops them from balancing away the Second Amendment next?

Beyond One Case: A Pattern At DOJ

Reboli says Case v. Montana isn’t a one-off. He sketches a pattern he believes shows DOJ squeezing constitutional rights from multiple angles.

First, speech. GOA filed a FOIA request about alleged ATF surveillance programs. After receiving unredacted documents from ATF, DOJ sought – and obtained – a protective order barring GOA from publishing the material. Reboli calls that a classic prior restraint, the sort of gag the Supreme Court almost never approves, yet one DOJ continues to defend on appeal.

Second, commerce. On the “zero tolerance” policy for FFLs, Reboli says DOJ has tried to moot challenges without conceding the underlying legal arguments— – amely, the claim that “there is no Second Amendment right of a private business to sell a firearm.” Even as policy shifts, he says, the anti-gun legal theory remains on the table.

To Reboli, put it together and you get a troubling picture: a DOJ defending warrantless home entries for “aid,” gagging publication about surveillance, and preserving arguments that insulate anti-gun enforcement. 

He contrasts that posture with a political promise of constitutional restoration, and urges viewers to keep pressure on the executive branch to align DOJ with those commitments.

The Stakes, And What To Do Now

So what happens next?

The Supreme Court will decide whether “reasonable suspicion of the need for aid” can justify a warrantless home entry – or whether probable cause and true exigency remain the standard, as Reboli believes Caniglia already makes clear.

If the Court adopts Montana’s view (and DOJ’s brief), Reboli warns of a world where an argument overheard by a neighbor becomes a green light for entry – “we were just helping” – with all the predictable dangers when a lawful gun owner reacts to an unexpected breach of his door.

My view: the home has always been the constitutional red line. If officers really have time to circle a house, chat for forty minutes, debate tactics, and grab a shield, they have time to call a judge. The warrant process exists precisely to prevent hunches from turning into bullets.

Reboli ends with a call to action. He encourages gun owners to speak up, press the administration to oppose warrantless entries, abandon anti-speech gags, and reject interest-balancing that erodes fundamental rights. 

Whatever your politics, the baseline is nonnegotiable: the Fourth Amendment doesn’t stop at your front steps, and the Second Amendment doesn’t vanish when you call that address “home.”

The question now is whether the Supreme Court will say so, again, and whether the DOJ will listen.

UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped

Americans have long debated the role of firearms, but one thing is sure — some states are far more armed than others.

See where your state ranks in this new report on firearm ownership across the U.S.