/squirrels/media/agency_attachments/Grmx48YPNUPxVziKflJm.png)
/squirrels/media/member_avatars/2025/07/20/2025-07-20t080843819z-lavanya-tomar-2025-07-20-13-38-43.jpg )
Follow Us/squirrels/media/media_files/2026/01/22/police-ice-2026-01-22-16-23-17.png)
A recently disclosed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) memo is igniting legal and political firestorms after a whistleblower revealed that federal agents may now be authorized to enter private homes without a judicial warrant.
The policy, allegedly issued on May 12, 2025, permits agents to rely on "administrative warrants"—documents issued internally by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—rather than court-ordered warrants signed by a judge.
A Break From Longstanding Practice
Historically, ICE arrests in private residences required a judicial warrant to authorize entry. Administrative warrants (such as Form I-205) were typically limited to public spaces.
Key Provisions of the May 2025 Memo:
Authorization: Agents can enter homes solely based on internal DHS administrative warrants for individuals with final removal orders.
Requirements: Officers must verify the removal order and have "reason to believe" the individual is present in the residence.
Protocol: Instructions include a "knock and announce" requirement.
Force: The memo authorizes the use of “necessary and reasonable” force if entry is refused.
Fourth Amendment and Constitutional Concerns
Civil liberties advocates argue the policy is a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens and residents against unreasonable searches and seizures.
“Only a warrant issued by a neutral and detached magistrate authorizes entry into a private residence. ICE’s own policy manuals historically reflected this standard.”
— Whistleblower Aid Complaint
Rosanna Berardi, an immigration attorney, warned that the policy creates a "dangerous accountability vacuum," noting that instructions were often delivered verbally to contradict written training materials./squirrels/media/post_attachments/dc86ed90-b47.png "publive-image")
DHS Defense vs. Legal Opposition
The Department of Homeland Security has moved quickly to defend the legality of the memo.
| Perspective | Argument |
| DHS (Assistant Sec. Tricia McLaughlin) | Individuals have already received full due process via immigration judges; administrative warrants are a recognized tool. |
| Constitutional Scholars | While administrative warrants may justify an arrest, they do not legally grant the power to breach a private threshold without a judge's signature. |
| Senator Richard Blumenthal | Called the policy “legally and morally abhorrent” and a threat to every American's privacy. |
Local Impact: Focus on Minnesota
The disclosure follows a period of heightened tension in Minneapolis, characterized by:
Recent federal immigration raids and large-scale protests.
A fatal ICE shooting earlier this month.
Reports of detainees being denied timely access to legal counsel.
/squirrels/media/post_attachments/f15cc2c7-782.png "publive-image")
A Policy Shrouded in Secrecy
The whistleblower complaint alleges a high degree of "information control" regarding the document:
Limited Access: Supervisors were reportedly told to show the memo to select employees only.
No Copies: Employees were required to read and return the document immediately.
Verbal Training: Most implementation training was conducted verbally to avoid a "paper trail."
What Comes Next?
Legal experts anticipate immediate court challenges, including suppression motions and civil rights lawsuits. With Congressional hearings likely on the horizon, the central question remains whether the executive branch can bypass the judiciary to enter private homes.