Is ice entering homes without judicial warrants in Minnesota

1. Internal memo rewrites the rulebook, and Minnesota is a testing ground

An internal May 2025 ICE memo, obtained and reported by The Associated Press and covered by Minnesota outlets, authorized officers to rely on agency‑issued administrative warrants and use “necessary and reasonable” force to enter residences of people subject to final removal orders — a sharp reversal of prior ICE guidance that had discouraged use of administrative warrants to enter private homes ^{[1] [2]}. That memo is the explicit policy basis cited by multiple reporters for why agents in recent Minnesota operations have asserted they can enter homes without presenting a judicial warrant ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Ground truth: high‑profile St. Paul raids that look warrantless

Local and national coverage of several January raids in St. Paul documents forced entries in which residents and video say agents did not show judicial warrants at the door; in at least one case a warrant was posted on the doorstep the next day, and in another a man says he was handcuffed and taken outside in underwear and Crocs after agents broke in claiming to be seeking sex‑offender targets ^{[5] [3] [4] [6]}. Reporters — including Reuters, PBS, CBS and ABC — corroborate the family’s account that DHS described operations as “targeted” and that officials invoked administrative warrants and standard safety protocols in their public statements ^{[7] [6] [8]}.

3. Law, rights and the legal fight over constitutionality

Civil‑liberties advocates argue entry without a judicial warrant violates the Fourth Amendment and have already taken legal action in Minnesota; the ACLU of Minnesota filed a class action challenging what it calls warrantless arrests, racial profiling and suspicionless stops, framing the enforcement surge as sweeping and unconstitutional ^[9]. State guidance and community groups continue to advise that people have the right to refuse consent to searches absent a judicial warrant and to demand to see it slid under the door — a practical tip repeated by local advocacy and attorney resources ^{[10] [11]}.

4. Government response and official framing

Homeland Security and ICE have defended the operations as lawful “targeted” enforcement relying on administrative processes and insisted holding all occupants for safety is routine; agency spokespeople and ICE leadership assert the Constitution and immigration statutes allow reliance on administrative warrants in certain circumstances, a claim reflected in the Lyons memo and agency statements ^{[2] [8]}. At the same time DHS faced pressure to explain specific incidents — including an announcement that the Justice Department would investigate at least one case where a U.S. citizen was detained and later released after agents said they were looking for other targets ^[4].

5. What is certain, and what remains contested

What is documented: an internal ICE memo authorizes forcible entry using administrative warrants ^{[1] [2]}, and multiple Minnesota raids were reported where residents and video footage show agents entering homes without a judge‑signed warrant being shown at the door ^{[5] [3] [4] [6]}. What remains legally contested: whether the administrative‑warrant practice squarely satisfies constitutional requirements in each specific arrest and whether DOJ or courts will curb those tactics — litigation and federal review are underway and advocacy groups are actively suing ^{[9] [4]}. Reporting so far shows both the policy change and its operational use in Minnesota, while courts and civil‑rights actors are challenging the legal and civil‑liberties implications ^{[1] [2] [9]}.