At a Glance
- ICE officers began entering homes without judicial warrants last summer, two administration officials told News Of Los Angeles. The practice relies on administrative warrants signed by ICE field-office officials, a lower legal standard than a judge-issued warrant. The policy was formalized in a memo dated May 12, 2025 and is actively used across the U.S.
- Civil-rights groups say the practice violates the Fourth Amendment and has sparked protests.
Why it matters: The move raises questions about the limits of federal enforcement power and the protection of private property.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers began forcibly entering homes without judicial warrants last summer, two administration officials told News Of Los Angeles. The practice relies on administrative warrants signed by ICE field-office officials, a lower legal standard than a judge-issued warrant. The policy, detailed in an internal memo dated May 12, 2025, allows officers to enter a residence if an order to remove someone from the country exists.
Background of the Memo
The memo was shared with Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., by two whistleblowers earlier this week. It follows a March 2025 opinion from the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of the General Counsel, which clarified that the U.S. Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and immigration regulations do not prohibit relying on administrative warrants for arrests in a person’s residence. The memo states that:
- Aliens subject to final removal orders may be arrested and detained in their homes.
- Officers must give residents time to comply with the order.
- Entries should generally avoid times before 6 a.m. or after 10 p.m..
- Only necessary and reasonable force should be used.
The memo also notes that this is a departure from past procedures, where administrative warrants were not used alone for such arrests.
Legal and Civil-Rights Reaction
Spencer Amdur, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union Immigrants’ Rights Project, said the policy “flatly violates the Fourth Amendment” that protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. “It’s part of a consistent pattern of trying to disregard clear legal limits on their authority,” he added, referencing the Trump administration.
DHS spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin confirmed that the policy is actively in use. She stated, “In every case that DHS uses an administrative warrant to enter a residence, an illegal alien has already had their full due process.” McLaughlin declined to provide details on how many homes were entered or the exact locations.
Implementation and Public Response
Charlie Wall, recently named acting deputy director of ICE, has been tasked with implementing the policy. In June, he traveled to Los Angeles to brief officers on the new procedure. ICE began ramping up arrests on June 6, coinciding with the city’s heightened enforcement actions. The presence of ICE in Los Angeles sparked protests across the city, reflecting growing public concern over the expanded enforcement tactics.
One of the officials told News Of Los Angeles that the policy is now being referenced in training materials for ICE officers. The memo’s language, signed by acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, acknowledges that detaining people “in their residences” based solely on administrative warrants marks a change from past practices.
President Trump’s Comments
President Donald Trump acknowledged that federal agents “make mistakes sometimes” in enforcing his immigration crackdown. The statement came after weeks of violent confrontations, including the fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good. Trump’s remarks highlight the broader national debate over immigration enforcement methods.
Key Takeaways
- ICE’s use of administrative warrants to enter homes without judicial warrants has been formalized and is actively employed.
- Civil-rights advocates argue the policy violates the Fourth Amendment.
- The policy has led to increased arrests and public protests, especially in Los Angeles.
- DHS officials confirm the policy’s use but withhold specifics on scope.
- The practice represents a shift from previous enforcement protocols.
