ICE Memo Says Its Agents Can Enter Your Home Without a Judge's Warrant

For decades, the front door has held a special significance in American legal tradition. It symbolises a boundary that the state cannot cross without clear judicial authority. However, a newly revealed memo from US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) appears to challenge that longstanding principle.

An internal ICE directive, obtained by the Associated Press, asserts that immigration officers can forcibly enter private residences without a judge's warrant. Instead, the memo authorises entry using only an administrative arrest warrant, a document issued within the immigration system rather than by a court.

Signed by acting ICE director Todd Lyons in May 2025, the guidance marks a dramatic departure from the advice previously given to officers and the immigrant communities they serve.

What the Memo Allows

According to the memo, ICE officials are authorised to enter a person's residence to execute an arrest of someone with a final removal order, using an administrative warrant (I-205), regardless of whether a judicial magistrate has authorised such entry. The memo states that officers must knock on the door, identify themselves, and explain the purpose of their visit.

The permitted hours for entry are limited to between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., and officers are instructed to allow a reasonable amount of time for compliance before using what the memo describes as 'necessary and reasonable force' to effect the entry.

Historically, ICE has not relied solely on administrative warrants to enter private homes, instead requiring a judicial warrant or consent. However, this memo reflects a new legal interpretation by the Department of Homeland Security's Office of the General Counsel, potentially expanding the scope of enforcement actions.

Why This Is a Major Shift

For many years, legal organisations and local authorities have advised against opening the door to immigration officers unless they possess a court-ordered warrant. This guidance stems from long-standing Supreme Court rulings that generally prohibit law enforcement from entering private homes without a warrant issued by a judge, with limited exceptions.

While arrests can be made with administrative warrants, these have traditionally been limited to public locations. They have not authorised forced entry into private residences without consent or a judicial warrant. The ICE memorandum appears to challenge this interpretation, opening the door to a broader interpretation of administrative warrants.

This change coincides with the Trump administration's more aggressive stance on immigration enforcement, which saw a significant ramp-up in deportation efforts and the hiring of additional officers under the expanded enforcement campaign.

Whistleblowers and Secrecy

Sources close to ICE suggest that the memo has not been widely circulated within the agency. Instead, it has been selectively shared with a limited number of staff members and used during training for new recruits. In some cases, employees are only permitted to review the document under supervision and are instructed to return it immediately, with no note-taking allowed.

The organisation Whistleblower Aid has described the directive as private and likely unconstitutional. They reported that it took approximately six months to find a safe, lawful way of disclosing the document to Congress, highlighting concerns about transparency and accountability.

What Has Already Happened

The practical implications of the memo are already evident. Earlier this month, Associated Press reporters witnessed federal immigration officers forcibly entering a Minneapolis home during an arrest operation.

Officers, dressed in tactical gear and armed with rifles, entered without a judicial warrant, relying solely on an ICE-issued administrative arrest warrant. Documents reviewed by the AP confirmed that no judicial warrant was presented. Advocates argue that this incident illustrates how the memo could reshape immigration enforcement nationwide, with similar tactics potentially becoming more common as the policy is implemented more broadly.

The Government's Response

The Department of Homeland Security maintains that those arrested under the authority of an administrative warrant have already received due process and possess a final removal order. A department spokesperson stated that officers issuing such warrants have sufficient probable cause to support an arrest.

The administration also asserts that Congress and the Supreme Court have previously established the legal framework for administrative warrants in immigration enforcement; however, it has yet to clarify how this aligns with the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Legal Challenges Ahead

Critics are warning that the memo could face significant legal challenges from civil rights groups and states prioritising immigrant rights. They argue that it erodes the constitutional right to privacy within the home—a cornerstone of American legal protections.

Although ICE publicly states that its officers are trained to respect the Fourth Amendment, whistleblowers have claimed that recruits are instructed to follow the memo's guidance rather than standard training materials, which state otherwise.

For now, a document few have seen is already influencing how immigration enforcement approaches the front door, raising serious questions about the future of constitutional protections and the limits of executive authority in immigration matters.