In a significant shift in immigration enforcement practices, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has authorized its officers to forcibly enter private homes without a warrant signed by a judge in certain deportation cases. This change, outlined in an internal memo dated May 12, 2025, was recently revealed through whistleblowers and reported by major news outlets like NBC News and The Associated Press on January 21, 2026.
The memo, signed by ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons, states that agents can use an administrative warrant—known as Form I-205—to arrest and detain individuals who have a final order of removal from an immigration judge, the Board of Immigration Appeals, or a U.S. district or magistrate judge. These administrative warrants are issued by immigration officials themselves and allow for arrests, but they differ from judicial warrants, which require a judge’s approval and typically protect against unreasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Historically, ICE has not relied solely on administrative warrants to enter homes for arrests. The memo acknowledges this change, noting that the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Office of General Counsel recently determined that the U.S. Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and related regulations do not prohibit this practice. It emphasizes that such entries should only target the individual subject to removal and not serve as a general search warrant.
The policy includes guidelines for agents: They must “knock and announce” their identity and purpose, give occupants a reasonable time to comply, limit operations to between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., and use only “necessary and reasonable” force if entry is refused.
A DHS spokesperson defended the approach, stating that individuals served with these warrants have already received full due process, including a final removal order from an immigration judge, and that officers have established probable cause. The spokesperson added that the Supreme Court and Congress have long recognized the validity of administrative warrants in immigration enforcement.
Critics, however, argue that the policy violates constitutional protections. Whistleblower Aid, representing two anonymous government officials who shared the memo with Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), called it a “complete break from the law” that disregards Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, especially in the home. The group pointed out that past ICE and DHS training materials warned against entering residences based solely on administrative warrants, as it could lead to constitutional violations.
Sen. Blumenthal described the memo as “legally and morally abhorrent,” warning that it allows the government to break into homes without judicial approval in most cases. He noted that the directive was not widely distributed despite being addressed to “All ICE Personnel”—instead, it was shared selectively, with some agents briefed verbally and others allowed only to view it under supervision, reportedly with threats of firing for speaking out.
The revelation comes amid the Trump administration’s aggressive mass deportation efforts, which began after President Trump’s return to office. ICE has arrested roughly 220,000 people in the first nine months, including about 75,000 with no criminal records, according to data from the University of California, Berkeley’s Deportation Data Project.
Recent incidents have heightened tensions. In Minneapolis, ICE operations have included forceful entries, such as ramming a door with only an administrative warrant. Protests erupted after an ICE agent fatally shot U.S. citizen Renee Good on January 7, 2026, during an enforcement action—sparking widespread outrage and calls for accountability. Enforcement has expanded to other areas, including Maine under operations targeting criminal noncitizens, though local officials have pushed back against aggressive tactics.
Immigrant advocates and legal experts warn that this policy undercuts long-standing advice: People should not open their doors to ICE unless shown a judicial warrant. The change is expected to face legal challenges, as it appears to conflict with Supreme Court precedents limiting warrantless home entries.
As debates continue, the memo highlights deep divisions over immigration enforcement, balancing security priorities against constitutional safeguards and civil liberties.