Can ICE enter a house without a warrent
Executive summary
The short answer: ICE has asserted in an internal 2025 memo that agents may enter homes using administrative warrants (Form I‑205) and, in some circumstances, make warrantless arrests when they believe someone is likely to escape, but that claim is contested and the constitutional question is now the subject of litigation and wide legal debate [1] [2] [3]. Multiple news organizations report the memo represents a sharp shift from longstanding practice and guidance that generally required a judge‑signed warrant to enter a private residence [4] [5].
1. What the ICE memo actually says
An internal ICE memorandum dated May 12, 2025 and disclosed to the press instructs officers they may rely on “narrow administrative warrants” issued by DHS (Form I‑205) to enter residences to arrest people with final orders of removal, and it also invokes a statute permitting warrantless arrests of noncitizens thought likely to flee, framing this as a lawful change in practice [1] [2] [6].
2. What advocates and legal scholars say about the Fourth Amendment
Immigrant‑rights groups and many legal scholars argue the Fourth Amendment and decades of practice require judicial warrants to enter homes, and that using an internal administrative warrant to force entry “flies in the face” of constitutional protections and training guidance that traditionally says administrative warrants do not authorize home entry [7] [8] [9].
3. The government’s legal justification and internal view
ICE and the DHS Office of General Counsel told agency staff the Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and immigration regulations do not prohibit relying on administrative warrants for residential arrests, and DHS spokespeople have said those served with administrative warrants already have had due process and a final removal order from an immigration judge [3] [1] [10].
4. Precedent, exceptions and legal uncertainty
Supreme Court jurisprudence generally disfavors warrantless entries into homes, and longstanding enforcement guidance emphasized judge‑signed warrants; but the government points to statutes and some circuit decisions that have allowed warrantless immigration arrests in limited contexts (knock‑and‑announce without entry, hot pursuit, exigent circumstances), producing genuine doctrinal ambiguity that courts have not fully resolved in the administrative‑warrant context [5] [11] [12].
5. Lawsuits, whistleblowers and political pushback
Immigrant‑rights groups filed lawsuits challenging the policy as unconstitutional, whistleblowers and congressional officials raised alarms, and senators and city officials have publicly criticized the memo while questioning whether ICE hid the change from the public; plaintiffs argue forcible residential entry based solely on an administrative warrant violates the Fourth Amendment [3] [9] [7].
6. On the ground: how the policy has been applied and its risks
Reporting and eyewitness accounts show ICE has already used aggressive residential tactics in some operations, with news outlets documenting entries and confrontations that suggest the memo is being operationalized; advocates warn this increases the potential for mistaken entries, civil‑rights violations and dangerous encounters, while ICE asserts officers have probable cause and procedural bases for arrests [12] [1] [6].
7. Bottom line — can ICE enter a house without a judge‑signed warrant?
Practically, ICE says yes in certain circumstances: the agency interprets statutes and its administrative warrants as authorizing residential entry to effect arrests of people with final removal orders and also invokes limited statutory authority for warrantless arrests if an individual is “likely to escape” [1] [2] [3]. Legally, that interpretation is disputed and unresolved in the courts; challenges and precedents emphasizing the Fourth Amendment mean the question will turn on litigation and judicial rulings rather than agency guidance alone [3] [11] [7].