Can ICE agents arrest and carry firearms in all jurisdictions?
Executive summary
Yes—federal law gives ICE officers broad authority to make arrests and, under Attorney General–prescribed regulations, to carry firearms while performing immigration-enforcement duties [1] [2], but that authority is constrained by federal rules on use of force and certification, Fourth Amendment limits around homes and private property, and by state and local policies that can restrict cooperation or create narrower arrest conditions in certain settings [3] [4] [5] [6].
1. Federal statutory basis: immigration arrest powers and scope
Congress vested immigration officers with warrantless arrest powers for enforcement of the immigration laws and authorized the Attorney General to regulate the scope of those powers, including use of force and categories of officers who may make arrests (8 U.S.C. §1357); ICE’s authority to arrest in the interior is therefore federal statutory authority, not state-granted police power [1] [2] [5].
2. Firearms authority: agency policy plus AG regulations
Under the statute and implementing regulations, officers “may carry a firearm” in the performance of immigration enforcement duties if authorized under Attorney General–prescribed rules, and ICE maintains its own firearms standards, approved weapons lists and qualification requirements (quarterly qualification, authorized-weapons lists) that govern when and how agents carry and use firearms [1] [7] [3] [8].
3. Location and warrant limits: public versus private spaces
ICE can arrest without a judicial warrant in many circumstances—especially in public or non-REP (restricted entry premises) locations—but its administrative “ICE warrants” are administrative removal instruments rather than judicial search warrants, and many courts have found that forcible home entries without a judicial warrant can violate the Fourth Amendment absent exigent circumstances or consent [5] [4] [9]. ICE itself acknowledges it “does not need judicial warrants to make arrests” in many contexts, but guidance and case law limit authority to enter private homes or certain protected locations without a court order [10] [4].
4. State and local limits and the impact of non‑cooperation
States and localities cannot nullify federal immigration statutes, but they can limit their own cooperation—declaring “sanctuary” policies, refusing to honor civil detainers, and passing targeted laws that restrict enforcement in certain settings (for example, some jurisdictions now forbid ICE arrests at courts without judicial warrants)—which in practice narrows where and how ICE conducts arrests and forces reliance on federal-only operations or judicial processes [7] [6] [11].
5. Practical constraints, training and controversy
ICE’s statutory authority is implemented through agency directives that require certification, qualifications, and internal use‑of‑force rules, and those constraints affect who in the agency can carry firearms or make certain arrests [1] [3]. At the same time, controversies over plain‑clothes operations, mask use, and home entries have provoked litigation, local bans, and political pushback; courts and advocates have challenged some ICE tactics as exceeding constitutional limits, while ICE and proponents point to the need for operational flexibility to arrest immigration violators [9] [5] [7].
6. Bottom line: broad federal power, bounded by law, policy and politics
ICE agents generally can arrest across U.S. jurisdictions under federal law and may carry firearms when authorized by Attorney General regulations and agency rules [1] [2] [3], but that power is not absolute: judicial Fourth Amendment protections constrain entries into homes and some private buildings without a warrant or exigency [5] [4], internal certification and use‑of‑force rules limit which officers can carry and when [3], and state/local non‑cooperation and targeted legal limits can narrow where ICE operates effectively even if they cannot wholly eliminate federal arrest authority [6] [7].