What have courts and civil-rights groups documented about the use of administrative warrants and home entries during recent ICE operations?
Executive summary
A flurry of reporting and a recent federal decision have focused attention on an internal ICE memorandum that instructs officers they may execute administrative "I‑205" or Form I‑210 removal warrants to arrest people in their homes without obtaining a separate judicial search warrant [1] [2] [3]. Courts and civil‑rights organizations have documented conflicting conclusions: a federal judge in Minnesota found such forced home entry without a judicial warrant violated the Fourth Amendment in at least one case, while ICE and DHS officials point to an internal Office of General Counsel determination and the agency memo as legal authorization for the practice—setting up constitutional challenges and widespread advocacy pushback [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. What the ICE memo instructs and how it differs from past practice
The internal memo signed by acting ICE Director Todd Lyons on May 12, 2025, tells officers they may rely on administrative removal warrants—Forms I‑205/I‑210, signed by agency officials—to enter residences and arrest individuals subject to final orders of removal, a shift from prior practice that generally relied on judicial warrants for home entry [2] [5] [4]. ICE frames the change as grounded in a recent DHS Office of General Counsel determination that "nothing in the U.S. Constitution, the INA, or immigration regulations prohibits relying on administrative warrants" for residential arrests [2] [4]. Reporting and whistleblower materials say the memo expressly authorizes forcible entry based on these administrative instruments [1] [5].
2. What courts have documented so far
At least one federal judge in Minnesota has already ruled that ICE agents violated the Fourth Amendment when they forcibly entered a private home without a judicial search warrant, a decision that directly contradicts the agency’s internal guidance and highlights judicial skepticism about administrative warrants authorizing home entry [1]. Appeals and other litigation are ongoing; reporting notes legal challenges are "almost certain" given longstanding Supreme Court precedents generally barring warrantless home entries and the dramatic policy reversal represented by the memo [3] [6]. Courts have historically distinguished between administrative warrants (authorized by agency officials for arrests or seizures) and judicial warrants (which provide a court‑issued basis to search nonpublic areas), and that distinction underpins much of the current litigation [7].
3. What civil‑rights groups and advocates have documented and argued
Advocacy organizations and legal aid groups have documented incidents where ICE relied on administrative warrants in residential or otherwise nonpublic settings and have said those entries conflict with Fourth Amendment protections and long‑standing "know your rights" guidance telling people not to open doors without a judge‑signed warrant [5] [3] [8]. Whistleblower Aid and other advocacy channels provided Congress and reporters with the memo and a complaint, and some training materials previously circulated within ICE warned that relying solely on administrative warrants could violate constitutional protections—materials cited by advocates to argue the memo reverses established internal teaching [2] [4]. Civil‑rights groups have called for congressional hearings and litigation to block the policy, framing it as both unlawful and likely to chill cooperation with critical public‑safety and social services [7] [3].
4. The legal debate ICE and supporters advance
ICE and DHS officials defend the memo by emphasizing that individuals served with administrative removal warrants have already undergone immigration proceedings and final orders of removal, and the OGC’s analysis purports to find statutory and constitutional permissibility for using agency warrants to effectuate arrests in residences [2] [7]. Supporters note that administrative warrants historically authorize arrests and that ICE interprets prior precedent and the INA as allowing agency‑issued process for immigration enforcement, but opponents counter that constitutional Fourth Amendment protections require independent judicial review before entering private homes to search or seize—an argument already finding traction in at least one federal courtroom [4] [1] [3].
5. Evidence gaps, immediate consequences, and what remains unresolved
Reporting confirms the memo’s existence and that whistleblowers shared it with Congress, but public records remain thin on the scope and frequency of home entries carried out solely on administrative warrants—news outlets and analysts have noted it is unclear how many such raids have occurred under the new guidance and many cases remain in early litigation or are the subject of protests and local policy responses [2] [9] [7]. The most concrete documentary developments to date are the internal memo itself, the Minnesota judge’s ruling finding a Fourth Amendment violation in a particular arrest, and mounting civil‑rights litigation and congressional scrutiny that together will determine whether courts ultimately sustain or curtail the agency’s asserted authority [1] [3] [6].