Https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/ice-entering-homes-judicial-warrants-last-summer-sources-say-rcna255619
Executive summary
NBC reported that two administration officials told the network ICE officers began forcibly entering homes without judicial warrants “last summer,” citing an internal ICE memo that authorizes entry based on administrative warrants when a person has a final order of removal [1]. That reporting aligns with other outlets’ accounts of the same memo and with witnessed incidents, but it also sits at the center of an active legal and constitutional dispute between ICE/DHS and advocates, courts and some legal scholars [2] [3] [4].
1. What NBC reported: a change in practice starting last summer
NBC’s story says two administration officials confirmed ICE began using administrative-authority-based entries without judge-signed warrants as early as last summer, a shift from longstanding practice that relied on judicial warrants or narrow exceptions before entering a private home [1]. The network frames the reporting as confirming both the existence of the May memo and that its guidance has moved from policy to practice within field offices [1].
2. What the internal memo actually says and how ICE defends it
The memo described in multiple outlets instructs ICE officers they may forcibly enter a residence using an administrative I-205 arrest warrant where there is a final order of removal, asserting that the Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act and immigration regulations “do not prohibit” relying on administrative warrants for such entries [3] [5]. ICE and DHS spokespeople point to that reasoning and to internal legal advice as justification for treating administrative warrants as sufficient in those circumstances [5] [3].
3. Independent reporting and a witnessed raid that crystallized concerns
The Associated Press reported and witnessed a Minneapolis incident in which officers rammed a front door and arrested Garrison Gibson while carrying only an administrative deportation order, a scene that helped publicize the memo and provoked legal complaints and whistleblower disclosures [2] [6]. Local outlets and national coverage have repeatedly cited that incident as emblematic of how the memo is being applied in the field [7] [8].
4. The constitutional and judicial pushback
Legal advocates, civil‑liberties groups and some judges say the memo collides with Fourth Amendment protections because Supreme Court precedent generally requires judicially sanctioned warrants to enter homes absent exigent circumstances; a federal judge in Minnesota recently concluded agents “forcibly entered [Gibson’s] home without his consent and without a judicial warrant,” finding a Fourth Amendment violation in that arrest [4]. Whistleblower filings and attorney commentary underscore that longstanding DHS training warned that entering homes on administrative warrants "is typically a violation of the Fourth Amendment," framing the memo as a reversal of earlier legal prudence [9] [10].
5. What this means for residents and “know-your-rights” advice
For years immigrant-rights groups and local governments advised residents not to open doors to immigration agents unless shown a judge-signed warrant; the memo undercuts that advice by instructing officers to knock and identify themselves but authorizing forced entry on administrative papers when there is a final removal order, creating legal and practical confusion about when refusal is legally protected [2] [11]. Coverage notes that administrative warrants are different in form and authority from judicial warrants, and in many jurisdictions people can legally refuse entry absent a judicial warrant except in limited exceptions [10] [8].
6. Agency motives, secrecy and political context
The memo emerged amid an administration push to accelerate immigration arrests and deployments of federal agents in cities, and the internal nature of the guidance — which critics say was not publicly disclosed until leaks and whistleblower complaints — has generated accusations of secrecy and a defensive posture from DHS and ICE even as they argue the policy is lawful [5] [3]. Opponents frame the move as both a tactical escalation and a way to sidestep judicial oversight; ICE and DOJ lawyers frame it as clarifying legal authority in pursuit of removals [5] [12].
7. Likely outcomes: litigation, narrow application or policy reversal
Given the mix of witnessed operations, whistleblower complaints, and at least one federal judge finding a constitutional violation, the policy is likely to face immediate legal challenges and varying judicial rulings that will shape how broadly the memo can be applied; the reporting makes clear the scope of real‑world usage is still being documented and litigated, so the ultimate legal contours remain unsettled [4] [2] [12].