ICE Authorizes Administrative Warrants for Home Entries, Sparking Legal Challenge
An Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) memo, dated May 12, 2025, reportedly authorizes agents to enter private homes to arrest individuals subject to final removal orders using administrative warrants (Form I-205). This marks a significant departure from previous practice, which typically required judicial warrants for such entries.
This policy has drawn criticism from civil liberties advocates, legal experts, and lawmakers, with a federal lawsuit filed challenging its constitutionality. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) maintains that individuals targeted by these warrants have received full due process.
Background on the Policy Shift
The internal ICE memo, reportedly signed by Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, permits officers to use administrative warrants, specifically Form I-205, for forcible home entries. These entries target individuals who have received a final order of removal from an immigration judge, the Board of Immigration Appeals, or U.S. district or magistrate judges. This directive represents a change from earlier guidance, which generally advised against forced home entry without a judge-signed warrant.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Office of General Counsel reportedly determined that the Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and immigration regulations do not prohibit the use of administrative warrants for this purpose.
Distinction Between Warrant Types
Historically, federal immigration officials have distinguished between judicial warrants, authorized by a judge, and administrative warrants, signed by executive branch personnel (such as ICE officers). Judicial warrants have traditionally permitted entry and search of private property, while administrative warrants did not typically authorize such entries. Most immigration arrests have historically been conducted with administrative warrants due to a lower issuance threshold.
Implementation Guidelines
According to the memo, agents are instructed to ensure the administrative warrant is properly completed and supported by a final order of removal. Agents must also have reason to believe the subject resides at and is currently located at the specified address.
Agents must first "knock and announce" their purpose and allow a reasonable chance for admittance, typically between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. If admittance is refused, officers are authorized to use "only a necessary and reasonable amount of force to enter the alien's residence."
The disclosure of this memo was reportedly tightly controlled, with supervisors verbally briefing the policy and directing employees to read and return copies rather than providing written documentation. Some ICE officials reportedly learned about the directive through news reports. Whistleblower complaints allege that new ICE recruits are being trained according to this new guidance, which may conflict with existing written Homeland Security training materials.
Reactions and Concerns
The policy has generated significant concern from various groups:
Whistleblower AllegationsWhistleblower Aid, representing anonymous government officials, contends that the memo violates the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and DHS's own policy manual. They argue administrative warrants are not considered warrants issued by a "neutral and detached magistrate."
Legal Experts and AdvocatesImmigration attorneys and civil liberties advocates assert that the policy poses a fundamental challenge to the Fourth Amendment and lacks sufficient safeguards and accountability. Concerns have been raised about an "accountability vacuum" due to verbal rollout instructions and the potential for ethnic profiling, referencing a Supreme Court opinion from Justice Brett Kavanaugh in Noem v. Perdomo (2025) that considered "apparent ethnicity" as a "relevant factor" in establishing reasonable suspicion when combined with other factors.
Political ResponseSenator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) called for an investigation and congressional testimony from DHS and ICE leadership. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz expressed concerns about the policy's impact on freedom and privacy.
Official Response and Defense
DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin stated that every individual served with administrative warrants/I-205s has received full due process and a final order of removal from an immigration judge.
McLaughlin added that officers issuing these warrants have found probable cause, and that the Supreme Court and Congress have recognized the propriety of administrative warrants in immigration enforcement for decades.
Incidents and Legal Challenges
In at least one instance witnessed by The Associated Press on January 11, 2026, ICE officers reportedly used a battering ram to forcibly enter a Liberian man's home in Minneapolis, armed with an administrative warrant. Videos circulating from Minneapolis depict confrontations between ICE agents and residents, including reports of a U.S. citizen being escorted from his home and a father detained after questions about his citizenship.
The Greater Boston Latino Network and the Brazilian Worker Center have filed a lawsuit in federal court in Boston, marking the first legal challenge to the policy. The lawsuit contends that allowing ICE officers to enter homes and conduct arrests based solely on an administrative warrant, even with force, violates the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment.
Related Enforcement Policy Changes
Separately, a government memo from Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons broadened the criteria for "warrantless arrests" by redefining "likely to escape." U.S. immigration law permits warrantless arrests if an officer suspects an individual is in the U.S. illegally and is likely to escape before a warrant can be issued.
The new definition states an individual is 'likely to escape' if they are unlikely to remain at the location where they were encountered. Factors for agents to consider include refusal of commands, attempts to evade officers, presence in a vehicle, and possession of potentially fraudulent documents. This updated policy comes amidst increased scrutiny of ICE operations, particularly in the Minneapolis region.