A newly disclosed internal memo from Immigration and Customs Enforcement is raising alarm among constitutional scholars, civil liberties advocates, and lawmakers, who warn that the document signals a fundamental break with Fourth Amendment protections against warrant-less home searches. According to reporting by the Associated Press, the memo claims ICE agents may forcibly enter private residences without a judicial warrant, without consent, and without an emergency, relying instead on internal administrative warrants.
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” For decades, courts and legal advocates have interpreted that language to mean that law enforcement officers generally may not enter a home without a warrant signed by a judge.
The internal ICE memo, dated May 12, 2025, and signed by acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, challenges that understanding. It states: “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 the 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.”
Administrative warrants are drafted and signed by immigration officials rather than judges. The memo authorizes ICE officers to use force to enter a residence if a person with a final order of removal refuses to admit them. “Should the alien refuse admittance, ICE officers and agents should use only a necessary and reasonable amount of force to enter the alien’s residence, following proper notification of the officer or agent’s authority and intent to enter,” the memo reads.
According to a whistleblower disclosure obtained by the Associated Press and sent to the US Senate on January 7 by the nonprofit Whistleblower Aid, the memo has not been formally distributed throughout the agency, despite being addressed to “All ICE Personnel.” The disclosure states that the document “has been provided to select DHS officials who are then directed to verbally brief the new policy for action.” Supervisors reportedly show the memo to some employees, require them to read it, and then collect it.
The disclosure further explains that newly hired ICE agents, “many of whom do not have a law enforcement background,” are being instructed to rely solely on administrative warrants signed by ICE officials to enter homes and make arrests. Whistleblowers say this guidance conflicts with written Homeland Security training materials that emphasize compliance with the Fourth Amendment. One whistleblower was reportedly allowed to view the memo only in the presence of a supervisor and was prohibited from taking notes.
The Associated Press reported observing how the policy may already be unfolding in practice. On Jan. 11, AP journalists witnessed ICE officers wearing heavy tactical gear and carrying rifles ram through the front door of a Minneapolis home belonging to Garrison Gibson, a Liberian man with a 2023 deportation order. Documents reviewed by the AP showed that the agents possessed only an administrative warrant, with no judge authorizing the raid on private property.
The reporting also describes federal agents breaking down the door of a residence in neighboring Saint Paul and arresting ChongLy “Scott” Thao, a U.S. citizen who was later freed. Civil liberties advocates argue that such incidents underscore the risks of mistaken raids and unconstitutional detentions when officers operate without judicial oversight.
Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin defended the policy in an emailed statement to the Associated Press, saying that everyone served with an administrative warrant has already had “full due process and a final order of removal.” She added that the Supreme Court and Congress have “recognized the propriety of administrative warrants in cases of immigration enforcement,” without elaborating. McLaughlin did not respond to questions about whether ICE officers have entered homes relying solely on administrative warrants since the memo was issued, or how often such entries may have occurred.
Legal experts and whistleblower advocates strongly dispute the administration’s legal interpretation. David Kligerman, senior vice president and special counsel at Whistleblower Aid, said that “no court has ever found that ICE agents have such legal authority to enter homes without a judicial warrant.” He warned that the policy advocates conduct the Supreme Court has described as “the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed,” referring to “the warrantless physical entry of a home.” Kligerman added, “This is precisely what the Fourth Amendment was created to prevent.”
Kligerman questioned why the policy was not publicly announced. “If ICE believes that this policy is consistent with the law, why not publicize it?” he asked. He concluded that “it cannot be undone by hidden policy memos.”
Reaction from legal scholars, attorneys, and journalists was swift. Alejandra Caraballo of the Harvard Law Cyberlaw Clinic wrote that “the Fourth Amendment literally exists to prevent this.” Attorney Bradley P. Moss commented, “Remember when the Fourth Amendment was still a thing?” Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, said, “It has been accepted for generations that the only thing which can authorize agents to break into your home is a warrant signed by a judge. No wonder ICE hid this memo!”
Reichlin-Melnick argued that the memo helps explain recent raids in which agents presented no judicial warrants before forcing entry. “In short, this secret memo explains SO MUCH of what we’ve been seeing over the last months, including this raid of a home in Minneapolis where ICE officers presented no judicial warrant before breaking in the door,” he said. “Turns out they were secretly told they don’t need one!”
Lindsay Nash, a law professor at Yeshiva University’s Cardozo School of Law, told the Associated Press that the memo “flies in the face” of Fourth Amendment protections and ICE’s own historical guidance. She warned of “enormous potential for overreach, for mistakes and we’ve seen that those can happen with very, very serious consequences.”
The disclosure has prompted congressional scrutiny. U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, the ranking member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, demanded answers from ICE and the Department of Homeland Security and requested records related to the memo. “Every American should be terrified by this secret ICE policy authorizing its agents to kick down your door and storm into your home,” Blumenthal said. “It is a legally and morally abhorrent policy that exemplifies the kinds of dangerous, disgraceful abuses America is seeing in real time.”
Blumenthal emphasized the constitutional stakes, stating, “In our democracy, with vanishingly rare exceptions, the government is barred from breaking into your home without a judge giving a green light.” He added, “Government agents have no right to ransack your bedroom or terrorize your kids on a whim or personal desire. I am deeply grateful to brave whistleblowers who have come forward and put the rights of their fellow Americans first.”
Calling on lawmakers from both parties, Blumenthal said, “My Republican colleagues who claim to value personal rights against government overreach now have an opportunity and obligation to prove that rhetoric is real. They must hold hearings and join me in demanding the Trump administration answer for this lawless policy.”
As the Trump administration continues to expand immigration arrests nationwide and rapidly hire new deportation officers, civil liberties advocates warn that the memo’s guidance could quickly be scaled across cities and states. Whether courts or Congress intervene may determine whether judicial warrants remain a firm constitutional barrier between the government and the front doors of private homes.
COMMENTS