What lawsuits have been filed challenging ICE's use of administrative warrants since 2024?
Executive summary
Since revelations about a May 12, 2025 ICE memo authorizing arrests in residences based on internal Form I-205 “administrative” warrants, plaintiffs and advocates have filed multiple legal challenges and revived older litigation attacking ICE’s use of non‑judicial warrants; notable actions include the ACLU‑led Hussen v. Noem class action in Minnesota and the aftermath of the Gonzalez detainer litigation, while judicial decisions such as a 2024 Central District of California ruling (Kidd) and a January 2026 Minnesota ruling have both constrained — and prompted — further suits over the constitutional limits of administrative warrants [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. The headline case: Hussen v. Noem and twin Minnesota suits
The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, together with national partners and law firms, filed a class‑action complaint challenging ICE and CBP practices in Minnesota that alleges widespread suspicionless stops, racial profiling, and warrantless arrests tied to the new administrative‑warrant posture; the complaint—titled Hussen v. Noem—seeks injunctive relief on behalf of Minnesotans and was publicly announced by the ACLU alongside at least one additional Minnesota suit, Tincher v. (full caption not provided in the available materials) that targets similar tactics [2]. The ACLU framed Hussen as a response to an uptick in aggressive operations that community groups say have targeted Somali and Latino residents and that rely on administrative instruments rather than judicially issued warrants [2].
2. Long game litigation: Gonzalez v. ICE and detainer practices carrying over into 2024–25
Gonzalez v. ICE, which culminated in a December 2024 nationwide class‑action settlement addressing ICE detainer practices, is a consequential predecessor that courts and advocates cite when challenging the agency’s administrative authorities; that case held prior ICE detainer practices unconstitutional and faulted ICE for issuing holds without proper administrative or judicial process, and the settlement provides a remedial backdrop to later suits that press on the question of when ICE must obtain neutral judicial oversight before forcible entries or arrests [3]. Plaintiffs and counsel are using Gonzalez’s principles to frame new claims that administrative documents cannot supplant Fourth Amendment warrant requirements where forcible home entry is at issue [3].
3. Judicial pushback and precedents: Kidd (C.D. Cal.) and a recent Minnesota ruling
Lower‑court decisions have already constrained the reach of administrative warrants: a 2024 Central District of California ruling known as Kidd limited reliance on administrative forms as authority for home arrests in that district, and a federal judge in Minnesota in January 2026 found that ICE agents violated the Fourth Amendment by entering a home without a judicial warrant—rulings plaintiffs cite as directly at odds with ICE’s May 2025 memo authorizing residential entries based on Form I‑205 [4] [5]. These precedents form the legal roof under which plaintiffs press constitutional and statutory challenges, and they explain why new filings seek classwide relief rather than narrow damages claims alone [4] [5].
4. Damages suits, Bivens limits, and practical hurdles for plaintiffs
At least some private plaintiffs are pursuing damages claims alleging illegal seizures and warrantless home invasions, but those claims face established barriers: suits seeking money damages against federal officers must often rely on Bivens remedies — a narrow, judge‑crafted cause of action that courts and defendants frequently cabined via qualified immunity and separation‑of‑powers reasoning — a strategy defendants have already attacked in filings [4]. Legal experts and reporting note that even when policy claims look strong, federal sovereign‑immunity doctrines, qualified immunity, and limited statutory causes of action constrain plaintiffs’ paths to compensation and underscore why many challenges instead target injunctive relief to block the policy itself [6] [4].
5. What's on the docket and reporting limits
Reporting confirms specific new suits challenging ICE’s administrative‑warrant practice — notably Hussen v. Noem and related Minnesota filings — and connects them to prior litigation like Gonzalez and to judicial decisions such as Kidd, but public records available in the provided sources do not list every complaint, plaintiff team, or docket number nationwide; journalists and advocates continue to identify additional cases and open records in response to the leaked memo, while some litigation remains at early stages or under seal [2] [3] [4] [7]. The legal fight will likely unfold as courts reconcile long‑standing training and agency guidance (which historically limited forced entries on administrative warrants) with DHS’s recent legal interpretation and the policy announced in the May 2025 memo [8] [1].