Updated Jan. 23, 2026, 10:11 p.m. ET
Immigration and Customs Enforcement is facing scrutiny over its assertion that federal officers can forcibly enter a home without a judicial warrant – a move constitutional scholars, immigration experts and a federal judge say is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment.
An internal ICE memo from May 2025 directs agents to use force to enter a residence with only an administrative warrant, which are signed by ICE officials and do not require a judge’s approval, according to a whistleblower complaint reviewed by USA TODAY and first reported by The Associated Press.
The memo upends longstanding precedent and law enforcement policy, including at the Department of Homeland Security, which relied on warrants signed by impartial members of the judicial branch to enter homes or businesses for searches and arrests.
News of the directive comes amid the Trump administration’s expanding deportation campaign that’s seen aggressive enforcement operations nationwide and a hiring blitz that more than doubled ICE’s workforce.
It remains unclear how often the new policy has been used in ICE operations. On Jan. 18, federal agents with guns drawn broke down the front door of the home of ChongLy Thao, a naturalized U.S. citizen, in St. Paul, Minnesota. Relatives and local officials said he was temporarily detained and never shown a judicial warrant. Images of Thao being led shirtless outside in the snow prompted outrage and calls for an independent investigation.
Federal authorities have downplayed constitutional concerns and said the agency is acting in accordance with the law. Marcos Charles, the executive associate director of ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations, said on Jan. 22 that agents can enter homes with only administrative warrants.
“We don’t break into anybody’s homes,” Charles said at a news conference. “We make entry either in a hot pursuit with a criminal arrest warrant or an administrative arrest warrant. The thing to remember is these administrative arrest warrants have been deemed justified by courts in immigration purposes.”
During a visit to Minneapolis, Vice President JD Vance said federal law enforcement will not enter someone’s home “without some kind of warrant,” but noted that could include the less stringent administrative document.
“Nobody is talking about doing immigration enforcement without a warrant,” he said, acknowledging the likely legal battles ahead. “It’s possible I guess that the courts will say no, and, of course, if the courts say no we will follow that law.”
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tricia McLaughlin did not deny the authenticity of the memo, but said in a statement to USA TODAY that “For decades, the Supreme Court and Congress have recognized the propriety of administrative warrants in cases of immigration enforcement.”
“Every illegal alien who DHS serves administrative warrants/I-205s have had full due process and a final order of removal from an immigration judge,” she said. “The officers issuing these administrative warrants also have found probable cause.”
Fourth Amendment scholars and immigration law experts said ICE’s new policy flies in the face of the U.S. Constitution. In 2024, a federal judge in California reached the same conclusion, banning ICE agents from entering homes without a judge’s warrant and declaring that such actions “violate the Fourth Amendment.”
“This is essentially authorizing a violation of fundamental rights we’ve had as Americans since the Bill of Rights was passed,” said Ric Simmons, a law professor at Ohio State University. “It goes against literally 250 years of case law on what the Fourth Amendment allows.”
Administrative warrants are not judicial warrants
The directive says ICE agents can use a Form I-205 to enter a residence without consent. A Form I-205, which authorizes the arrest of immigrants with final deportation orders, are not reviewed by a judge. The forms are instead signed by an ICE official – potentially the agent conducting the arrest.
A judicial warrant, on the other hand, is approved by an impartial judge outside the executive branch who must weigh evidence before allowing the government to forcibly enter someone’s home.
The determination that ICE agents can force their way into residences without seeking a judge’s approval usurps one of the nation’s most fundamental checks on law enforcement, experts said.
“The whole point of the Fourth Amendment is a check on police,” Simmons said. “Police want to find violations of the law, which is what they’re supposed to do. But before they’re allowed to enter a home, they need to go to a member of a different branch and prove it’s a reasonable thing to do.”
Lindsay Nash, a professor at Yeshiva University’s Cardozo School of Law, said it’s dangerous to conflate judicial warrants with administrative warrants.
“These forms filled out by ICE officers, potentially even the arresting officer, are really a far cry from the judicial warrants required for entry into a home,” she said.
Are there exceptions?
The Supreme Court has allowed very few exceptions for law enforcement to enter a home without a judge’s warrant or voluntary consent. Those mainly include emergencies such as an imminent risk to officers or civilians in the area or risk of immediate loss of evidence.
Simmons said there’s also a special needs doctrine suggesting that if the government is not conducting a search for criminal law purposes, then it’s not subject to all the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.
But the Supreme Court repeatedly limited entries into homes to emergencies, such as when authorities believe someone is seriously injured or is at risk of serious injury, including suicide.
“There’s no emergency for ICE,” Simmons said. “They’re not claiming it’s an emergency. It’s a civil law violation. I don’t see a way they can do that legally.”
The memo, according to a copy shared publicly by U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, makes a clear exception to the new policy for the Central District of California, where a federal judge in 2024 ruled that ICE agents needed judicial approval to force their way into a residence.
The order by U.S. District Court Judge Otis D. Wright says the court “vacates any policies or practices” allowing ICE agents to enter a home to arrest someone “absent a judicial warrant.”
“That’s the only time a court has taken up this specific issue,” Simmons said, speaking about Wright’s decision.
What does Department of Homeland Security policy say?
The ICE memo appears to conflict with longstanding procedures and policy at the Department of Homeland Security, including materials used to train ICE agents.
The whistleblower complaint included a copy of an ICE training guide from 2021 that says, “A warrant of removal/deportation does NOT alone authorize a 4th Amendment search of any kind.”
The May 12 memo, signed by Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, acknowledges the directive represents a shift in policy.
“Although the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has not historically relied on administrative warrants alone to arrest aliens subject to final orders of removal in their place of residence, the DHS Office of General Counsel has recently determined that the U.S. Constitution, the immigration and Nationality Act, and the immigration regulations do not prohibit relying on administrative warrants for this purpose,” the memo says.
Neither the memo nor any federal officials have laid out how this determination was made or presented a detailed legal argument.
Nash said the federal government faces an uphill battle if it attempts to prove the memo is constitutional.
“ICE has repeatedly recognized it its own manuals that administrative warrants don’t authorize it to forcibly enter a home,” she said. “ICE doesn’t have that kind of authority, so this will be very hard to justify in court.”
Whistleblowers allege memo was kept secret
The directive was not widely shared in the agency and instead was verbally communicated, including to new recruits, according to a disclosure received by members of Congress from Whistleblower Aid, a legal group representing two anonymous government officials.
“The May 12 Memo has been provided to select DHS officials who are then directed to verbally brief the new policy for action,” the disclosure said. “Those supervisors then show the Memo to some employees, like our clients, and direct them to read the Memo and return it to the supervisor.”
The whistleblowers allege that newly hired ICE agents, many whom do not have a law enforcement background, have been told to rely on the I-205 form to enter homes without consent to arrest undocumented immigrants with final deportation orders.
“Potentially, scores of ICE Agents will be emboldened to unlawfully enter private residences, which include the private residences of U.S. citizens,” the disclosure states.
Nash questioned why ICE did not publicly announce the policy change described in the memo.
“This is not the behavior of an agency that believes what it’s doing is lawful or would stand up in court,” she said.
(This story was updated to add comment from the Department of Homeland Security.)
Christopher Cann is a national breaking news reporter for USA TODAY. Contact him via email at ccann@usatoday.com.
Source link
