Immigration officers assert sweeping power to enter homes without a judge’s warrant, memo says

Federal immigration officers have been granted expanded powers to forcibly enter homes without judicial warrants, according to an internal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) memo obtained by The Associated Press. This policy shift represents a significant departure from long-established guidelines designed to respect constitutional limitations on government searches.

The directive, signed by ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons on May 12, 2025, authorizes officers to use force to enter residences based solely on administrative warrants when arresting individuals with final removal orders. This marks a dramatic reversal that legal experts say conflicts with Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

“Although the U.S. Department of Homeland Security 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,” states the memo.

The policy change comes amid the Trump administration’s accelerated immigration enforcement campaign, which has deployed thousands of new officers nationwide to implement an expanded deportation agenda. The directive directly undermines years of guidance from immigrant advocacy groups, legal aid organizations, and local governments, which have consistently advised immigrants not to open their doors unless officers present a judge-signed warrant.

Homeland Security spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin defended the policy in a statement to the AP, noting that individuals served with administrative warrants have already received “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,” though she provided no specific legal precedents.

According to the whistleblower disclosure obtained by the AP, the memo has not been widely shared within the agency. Instead, its contents have been used to train new ICE officers being deployed to implement the administration’s immigration policies. The whistleblowers report that recent hires are being instructed to follow the memo’s guidance rather than existing written materials that contradict it.

The AP witnessed the policy in action on January 11 in Minneapolis, when heavily armed ICE officers rammed through the front door of Liberian citizen Garrison Gibson’s home. Gibson had a deportation order from 2023, but documents reviewed by the AP confirmed the agents only possessed an administrative warrant, not one signed by a judge.

Under traditional legal interpretations, administrative warrants issued by immigration authorities authorize the arrest of specific individuals but do not permit officers to forcibly enter private homes without consent. Only judicial warrants have typically carried that authority.

Lindsay Nash, a law professor at Yeshiva University’s Cardozo School of Law, criticized the directive, saying it “flies in the face” of Fourth Amendment protections and ICE’s own historical understanding of its authorities. “There’s an enormous potential for overreach, for mistakes, and we’ve seen that those can happen with very, very serious consequences,” Nash noted.

The memo specifies that officers must first knock, identify themselves, and explain their presence. Entry using force is limited to between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., and only after giving occupants a “reasonable chance to act lawfully.” The directive states officers “should use only a necessary and reasonable amount of force” if entry is refused.

Two anonymous government officials, represented by the nonprofit Whistleblower Aid, disclosed the policy, describing it as “secretive” and “seemingly unconstitutional.” David Kligerman, senior vice president at Whistleblower Aid, explained it took time for the whistleblowers to find “a safe and legal path to disclose it to lawmakers and the American people.”

The policy shift is almost certain to face legal challenges from advocacy groups and immigrant-friendly jurisdictions that have successfully educated communities about their rights regarding home entries by federal agents.

As ICE rapidly expands its workforce to carry out increased deportation operations, the contradiction between this new directive and traditional constitutional interpretations raises significant concerns about enforcement tactics and civil liberties protections in communities across the country.