What federal court decisions since 2024 have addressed whether ICE can use Form I‑205 to enter homes without a judge's warrant?
Executive summary
Since 2024, federal courts have begun to grapple with whether ICE may rely on its internal Form I‑205 administrative “warrants” to enter homes without a judicially‑issued warrant, producing a small but consequential split: a Central District of California decision in 2024 (Kidd) constrained DHS’ reach in that district, and at least one more recent district‑court ruling held that a warrantless home entry under ICE guidance violated the Fourth Amendment; dozens of lawsuits challenging ICE’s May 2025 I‑205 memo remain pending around the country [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. The central precedent that courts keep citing: Kidd v. Mayorkas (C.D. Cal., 2024)
A 2024 decision out of the Central District of California—commonly cited as Kidd v. Mayorkas—has become the pivotal district‑court limit on DHS’s administrative‑warrant theory: commentators and government documents say the agency’s May 2025 guidance endorsing I‑205 entries is constrained in at least that district because of Kidd, and legal analysts read Kidd as a refusal to treat an ICE‑signed administrative I‑205 the same as a judge‑issued Fourth Amendment warrant [1] [5].
2. A 2026 district court found ICE’s warrantless home entry unconstitutional
In a January 17, 2026 ruling, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Bryan found that federal agents violated the Fourth Amendment when they entered a residence without consent and without a judge‑signed warrant, a ruling prompted by materials alleging ICE trains officers to treat I‑205s as sufficient authority; the decision did not directly rule on the internal ICE memo itself but squarely rejected the constitutionality of the specific warrantless home entry at issue [2].
3. Other district courts have pushed back on broad warrantless civil arrests
Federal judges in multiple districts have recently issued skeptical or adverse rulings toward expansive ICE enforcement practices: for example, a judge in Oregon issued a sweeping preliminary injunction restricting warrantless civil immigration arrests absent individualized findings about flight risk, and other courts—especially in Pennsylvania and Minnesota—have criticized or curtailed certain ICE detention and arrest practices, signaling a broader judicial wariness of permitting routine home entries without judicial oversight [6].
4. Litigation landscape: many lawsuits, few definitive appellate rulings
Civil‑rights groups and local plaintiffs have filed multiple suits challenging the May 2025 memorandum and the agency’s use of I‑205s to enter residences; Lawyers for Civil Rights and community organizations have sought declaratory and injunctive relief, and Reuters noted the Boston filing as among the first to challenge the new policy—yet as of the reporting, many cases are at the district level and the question awaits sustained appellate or Supreme Court resolution [4] [3].
5. Conflicting legal interpretations and the thinness of current nationwide authority
Legal scholars and policy trackers report sharp disagreement: some commentators and civil‑liberties groups say decades of Fourth Amendment doctrine require a neutral magistrate for home‑entry warrants and thus reject I‑205‑only entries (American Immigration Council; Lawyers for Civil Rights), while other analysts and some past lower‑court rulings have read statutes and immigration practice more flexibly—producing a contested patchwork of authority rather than a clear nationwide rule [7] [8] [9].
6. What is settled and what remains open
What is clear from the reporting is limited: district courts since 2024 have produced decisions that both constrain and criticize ICE’s attempt to rely on administrative I‑205 forms as standalone authority for forcible home entry (Kidd in C.D. Cal.; Judge Bryan’s January 2026 Fourth Amendment finding), but there is not yet a uniform, binding appellate or Supreme Court ruling resolving the legal question nationwide; ongoing litigation and dueling policy statements from ICE and civil‑rights litigants mean the issue remains actively litigated and likely to reach higher courts [1] [2] [3].