A newly revealed internal memorandum from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has raised serious legal and constitutional concerns, signaling a dramatic shift in how immigration arrests may be conducted inside private homes.
According to reporting by the Associated Press, ICE leadership has authorized officers to forcibly enter private residences without a judicial warrant, relying solely on administrative immigration warrants in cases involving individuals with final orders of removal. This guidance departs sharply from decades of established practice and longstanding Fourth Amendment principles.
As immigration enforcement intensifies nationwide, this policy is likely to become a flashpoint for constitutional litigation, suppression motions, and federal court challenges.
What Does the ICE Memo Say?
The memo, signed by ICE’s acting director in May 2025 and disclosed through a whistleblower complaint, asserts that immigration officers may:
- Enter a person’s home without a warrant signed by a judge
- Use force, if necessary, to gain entry
- Rely solely on an administrative warrant (Form I-205)
- Conduct arrests inside residences when a person has a final order of removal
ICE claims this authority is consistent with the Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and immigration regulations—even though the memo provides no detailed legal analysis supporting that conclusion.
Administrative Warrants vs. Judicial Warrants
This distinction is critical.
An administrative warrant:
- Is issued by ICE or DHS officials
- Is not reviewed or approved by a judge
- Authorizes arrest, but historically does not authorize entry into a private home
A judicial warrant:
- Is signed by a judge or magistrate
- Requires a showing of probable cause
- Is generally required for non-consensual entry into a residence
For years, immigration attorneys, legal aid organizations, and even ICE training materials have consistently stated that ICE cannot enter a home without consent unless officers possess a judicial warrant.
This memo directly contradicts that guidance.
Why This Raises Serious Fourth Amendment Issues
The Fourth Amendment protects all people in the United States—citizens and non-citizens alike—from unreasonable searches and seizures. Courts have long held that the home receives the highest level of constitutional protection.
While immigration enforcement operates under civil, not criminal, authority, that distinction has never eliminated Fourth Amendment limits.
Legal experts warn that ICE’s new position:
- Conflicts with Supreme Court precedent
- Undermines the requirement for neutral judicial oversight
- Creates a high risk of mistaken raids, excessive force, and unlawful arrests
- Opens the door to widespread constitutional violations
If enforced broadly, the policy is likely to face immediate challenges in federal court.
Real-World Impact: Enforcement on the Ground
The Associated Press documented at least one incident in Minneapolis in which ICE officers used a battering ram to enter a home while executing only an administrative warrant. The individual arrested had a prior removal order, but no judge authorized the entry into the home.
At the same time, whistleblowers allege that:
- The memo has not been widely circulated
- New ICE officers are being trained to follow it
- Written DHS training materials still contradict the memo’s guidance
This internal inconsistency further strengthens the case for judicial scrutiny.
What This Means for Immigrants and Families
This policy shift has immediate and serious implications:
- Individuals may face home arrests without prior judicial review
- Longstanding “know your rights” guidance is being undermined
- The risk of collateral arrests and mistaken identity increases
- Encounters with ICE are more likely to escalate quickly
At the same time, aggressive enforcement tactics often create legal vulnerabilities for the government, particularly where constitutional lines are crossed.
Litigation Is Likely, and Necessary
Policies like this do not exist in a vacuum. They are tested, refined, and sometimes struck down through litigation.
We expect this memo to generate:
- Motions to suppress evidence
- Civil rights lawsuits
- Federal court challenges under the Fourth Amendment
- Injunctions and declaratory actions
- Increased scrutiny of ICE arrest practices nationwide
Courts—not agencies—ultimately determine the scope of constitutional authority.
Our Perspective at Wilner & O’Reilly
Wilner & O’Reilly has decades of experience handling removal defense, federal court litigation, and constitutional challenges to unlawful immigration practices.
When enforcement agencies push beyond lawful boundaries, our role is to:
- Protect clients’ constitutional rights
- Challenge unlawful arrests and entries
- Hold agencies accountable in immigration court and federal court
- Ensure that enforcement complies with the law—not just internal memos
As immigration enforcement accelerates in 2026, experienced legal counsel is more critical than ever.
If you or a family member has been arrested at home, or if ICE entered a residence without a judge’s warrant, legal advice should be sought immediately. Contact our office by calling 888-847-5342.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Can ICE enter my home without a warrant?
Generally, ICE cannot lawfully enter a private residence without consent or a warrant signed by a judge. ICE’s recent memo claims otherwise, but that position is highly contested and likely unconstitutional.
What is an administrative warrant?
An administrative warrant is issued by ICE or DHS—not a judge. It authorizes an arrest but has traditionally not permitted forced entry into a home.
Does having a final order of removal eliminate constitutional protections?
No. Even individuals with final orders of removal retain Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Should I open the door if ICE knocks?
You are generally not required to open the door unless officers present a judicial warrant signed by a judge. Each situation is fact-specific, and legal advice is critical.
Will this ICE policy be challenged in court?
Almost certainly. Legal experts, advocacy organizations, and defense attorneys widely expect constitutional challenges and federal litigation.
How can an immigration attorney help?
An experienced immigration attorney can evaluate the legality of an arrest, challenge unlawful entry, file suppression motions, and pursue relief in immigration court or federal court.
Comments are closed.