Constitutional experts and federal judges have said it is a clear Fourth Amendment violation for immigration agents to enter people’s homes without a judge’s warrant.
ICE policy allows agents to enter homes without a judge’s warrant.
ICE’s new policy allows agents to enter homes without a judge’s warrant.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement faces intense scrutiny over claims that federal agents can forcibly enter homes without a judicial warrant, a move that constitutional scholars, immigration experts and federal judges say is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment.
According to a whistleblower review reviewed by USA TODAY and first reported by the Associated Press, an internal ICE memo from May 2025 instructs agents to use force to enter residences after obtaining an administrative warrant, which is signed by ICE officials and does not require judge approval.
The memo appears to overturn long-standing precedent and law enforcement policy, including at the Department of Homeland Security, which relies on warrants signed by an impartial member of the judiciary to enter homes and businesses for searches and arrests.
News of the memo comes amid an escalating Trump administration deportation campaign, aggressive enforcement efforts across the United States, and a hiring spree that more than doubles the number of employees.
It remains unclear how often the new policy was used in field operations. On January 18, federal agents with guns broke down the front door of the home of Chongli Tao, a naturalized citizen of the United States. He was briefly detained, but no warrant was produced, relatives and local officials said. Images of Thao being led outside in the snow, shirtless, sparked outrage and calls for a formal investigation.
ICE officials and other federal authorities have downplayed constitutional concerns and said ICE is acting in accordance with the law. Marcos Charles, executive associate director of ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations, said on January 22 that agents can only enter homes with an administrative warrant.
“We don’t break into anyone’s home,” Charles said at a news conference. “We enter the country in intense pursuit using either criminal arrest warrants or administrative arrest warrants. The thing to remember is that these administrative arrest warrants are considered justified by the courts for immigration purposes.”
During a visit to Minneapolis, Vice President J.D. Vance said federal law enforcement would not enter a person’s home “without a warrant of some kind,” although he noted that could include a less stringent administrative document.
“No one is talking about immigration without a warrant,” he said, acknowledging that legal battles are expected. “The court could say no, but of course if the court says no, we follow the law.”
Fourth Amendment scholars and immigration law experts said ICE’s memo violates the U.S. Constitution. In 2024, a federal judge in California reached a similar conclusion, barring ICE from entering homes without a judge’s warrant and declaring such actions “violate the Fourth Amendment.”
“This is essentially an admission of a violation of the fundamental rights that we have had as Americans since the Bill of Rights was passed,” said Rick Simmons, a law professor at Ohio State University. “This literally goes against 250 years of case law on what the Fourth Amendment allows.”
Administrative warrants are not judicial warrants.
According to the memo, ICE officers can use Form I-205 to enter residences without consent. Form I-205, which authorizes the arrest of an immigrant along with a final deportation order, is not reviewed by a judge. Instead, the form may be signed by an ICE officer, the officer directing the arrest.
A judicial warrant, on the other hand, must be approved by an impartial judge outside the executive branch and consider evidence before allowing the government to forcibly enter someone’s home.
Experts said the ruling that ICE agents can enter homes without seeking approval from a judge would take away one of the most basic checks on law enforcement in the country.
“The whole point of the Fourth Amendment is to have a check on the police,” Simmons said. “Police want to find violations of the law, and that’s what they’re supposed to do. But before they’re allowed to enter a home, they have to go to a member of another branch and prove that it was a reasonable thing to do.”
Lindsay Nash, a professor at Yeshiva University’s Cardozo School of Law, said it’s dangerous to confuse judicial and administrative warrants.
“These forms that ICE officers fill out, in some cases including arrests, are a far cry from the judicial warrants needed to enter a residence,” she said.
Are there any exceptions?
The Supreme Court has allowed law enforcement to enter homes without a judge’s warrant or consent, with very few exceptions. These primarily include emergencies such as immediate danger to police officers or civilians in the area or risk of immediate loss of evidence.
Simmons said there is also a special needs doctrine that suggests that if the government is not conducting an investigation for criminal law purposes, it is not subject to all of the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.
But the Supreme Court has repeatedly restricted access to homes in emergency situations, such as when authorities believe someone is seriously injured or at risk of serious injury, including suicide.
“There is no emergency for ICE,” Simmons said. “They’re not claiming it’s an emergency. This is a violation of civil law. I don’t see how they could legally do that.”
The memo is a clear exception to the new policy for the Central District of California, where a federal judge ruled in 2024 that ICE agents must have judicial authorization to invade homes, according to a copy released by Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut.
The order by U.S. District Judge Otis D. Wright states that the court “nullifies any policy or practice” that allows ICE agents to enter homes and make arrests “in the absence of a judicial warrant.”
“This is the only time the court has taken up this particular issue,” Simmons said of Wright’s decision.
What does Homeland Security policy say?
ICE’s memo appears to contradict long-standing Department of Homeland Security procedures and policies, including materials used to train ICE officers.
The whistleblower included a copy of the 2021 ICE Training Guide, which read:th All kinds of fix searches. ”
A May 12 memo signed by Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons acknowledged that the directive represents a departure from policy.
“While the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has not historically relied solely on administrative warrants to arrest aliens who are subject to final removal orders from their place of residence, the DHS Office of General Counsel recently determined that the U.S. Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and immigration regulations do not prohibit reliance on administrative warrants for this purpose,” the memo states.
Neither the memo nor federal officials provide a detailed legal argument for how this decision was made.
Nash said the federal government faces an uphill battle if it tries to prove the memo is constitutional.
“ICE has repeatedly recognized in its own manuals that administrative warrants do not authorize forcible entry into homes,” she said. “ICE has no such authority, so it would be very difficult to justify this in court.”
Whistleblower claims memo was kept secret
The directive was not shared widely within the agency and was communicated verbally, including to new employees, according to disclosures that lawmakers received from the whistleblower advocacy group, a legal group representing two anonymous government officials.
“The May 12 memo was provided to selected DHS officials who were then instructed to verbally explain the new course of action,” the disclosure statement states. “Those supervisors then show the memo to some employees, such as customers, and instruct them to read the memo and return it to their supervisor.”
Whistleblowers allege that many newly hired ICE officers have no law enforcement background and are told to rely on Form I-205 to enter homes without consent to arrest illegal immigrants.
“This could potentially result in large numbers of ICE agents trespassing into private residences, including those of U.S. citizens,” the disclosure statement said.
Nash questioned why ICE did not publicize the policy changes described in the memo.
“This is not the action of an agency that believes what it is doing is legal or that will stand up in court,” she said.
Christopher Cann is a national breaking news reporter for USA TODAY. Email us at ccann@usatoday.com.
