Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers can forcibly enter private homes without judicial warrants during deportation operations, according to an internal agency memo that's raising alarm bells from constitutional scholars and whistleblowers across the government.
The policy document, dated May 12, 2026, and signed by Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, instructs officers that "the U.S. Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and immigration regulations do not prohibit" using administrative warrants—internal ICE paperwork—rather than court-issued search warrants for residential arrests involving individuals with final removal orders.
But here's what makes this controversial: administrative warrants are signed by ICE supervisors, not judges. They authorize the arrest of specific individuals, but federal law enforcement training has long held they don't authorize entering homes—a crucial distinction under the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches.
Whistleblower Aid, representing federal employees who disclosed the memo, countered ICE's legal interpretation bluntly: "The Form I-205 does not authorize ICE agents to enter a home." The organization cited longstanding federal training materials warning that "entering a residence on solely an administrative warrant can cause violations of Fourth Amendment constitutional protections."
Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, called the policy "legally and morally abhorrent," noting it affects all Americans—not just immigrants. Once law enforcement claims authority to enter homes without judicial oversight for one purpose, the precedent threatens everyone's privacy rights.
The memo's distribution raises additional questions about transparency. Despite being labeled "all-hands," sources told NBC News it was shared selectively through verbal briefings, with warnings that opposition could result in termination—an unusual approach for standard policy guidance.
This comes as ICE has dramatically expanded enforcement operations nationwide. In Minnesota alone, operations this week detained dozens, including a controversial incident involving a 5-year-old boy who was briefly held as officers arrested his father. Those operations prompted protests outside ICE facilities and a federal courthouse in Minneapolis, with demonstrators blocking access for hours.
The constitutional implications extend beyond immigration policy. Fourth Amendment protections against warrantless home entry represent one of the founding generation's core grievances against British colonial rule. That's why courts have consistently held that absent exigent circumstances like pursuit of a fleeing suspect, officers need judicial warrants to enter private residences.
ICE defends its interpretation by pointing to Supreme Court cases giving immigration enforcement some latitude beyond typical Fourth Amendment constraints. But legal scholars note those cases addressed questioning and brief detentions in public spaces—not forcible home entry.
For Americans in communities with significant immigrant populations, the policy creates an environment of uncertainty. Neighbors may witness federal agents entering homes without understanding whether proper legal process was followed. Local police departments, many of which avoid immigration enforcement to maintain community trust, now face questions about whether they'll be asked to support these operations.
As Americans like to say, 'all politics is local'—even in the nation's capital. But this memo's implications reach into neighborhoods across the country, from agricultural communities in California to manufacturing towns in the Midwest, anywhere ICE asserts this controversial authority.
Civil liberties organizations are preparing legal challenges, arguing the policy violates both constitutional protections and administrative law requiring public notice and comment for major policy changes. Whether federal courts uphold ICE's interpretation will determine if this represents a fundamental shift in the balance between enforcement authority and constitutional rights.
