A recently disclosed internal memorandum from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has ignited heated legal debate. The memo instructs agents that they may enter private homes to effectuate immigration arrests without a judge-signed warrant.
According to whistleblower disclosures and reporting by multiple outlets, the memo, dated May 12, 2025 and attributed to Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, directs officers to rely on administrative warrants (Form I-205) rather than traditional judicial warrants when making arrests of individuals with final orders of removal.
Under long-standing Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, the Constitution protects the “security of persons and property against unreasonable searches and seizures” and generally requires a judge-signed warrant supported by probable cause before law enforcement can forcibly enter a home. Critics argue that the new ICE guidance directly undercuts these protections and risks widespread constitutional violations.
What the Memo Actually Permits
According to the reporting, the memo says ICE officers can use an administrative warrant to enter a residence of someone subject to a final order of removal. Officers are instructed to first announce themselves and provide the reason for their visit and are limited to attempting entry between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. If the occupant refuses to allow entry, agents may use “a necessary and reasonable amount of force.” Critically, the memo has not been widely disseminated within ICE and appears to have been shared only selectively, according to whistleblower complaints.
DHS/ICE Response
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials have defended the legal basis of the policy, with statements indicating that individuals subject to administrative warrants have already received due process and final orders of removal from immigration judges, and that administrative arrest authorities are recognized within immigration enforcement. Critics, however, note that immigration judges are part of the executive branch and not Article III judicial officers, and that administrative forms cannot constitutionally replace warrants issued by neutral magistrates for home entries.
Legal and Constitutional Concerns
Legal experts and civil rights advocates have criticized the memo as potentially violating the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, which traditionally prohibits entry into private homes without judicial approval absent narrow exceptions like consent or exigent circumstances. From a defense attorney’s perspective, this shift raises several urgent concerns:
1. Unclear Authority: Administrative warrants have historically authorized arrests, but not forced entry into homes without judicial oversight.
2. Fourth Amendment Risks: Without judicial review of probable cause and specific descriptions of the place to be searched, forced entries may constitute unreasonable searches.
3. Evidentiary and Suppression Implications: Actions taken under such authority could trigger motions to suppress evidence, dismissals of unlawful arrests, and heightened litigation over constitutional violations.
Implications for Criminal Defense Clients and What to Watch Out For: A Criminal Defense Attorney’s Perspective
Boston Federal Criminal Defense Attorney Vikas S. Dhar explains the implications to clients and colleagues:
“This memo represents a dramatic departure from the constitutional protections we’ve relied on for decades. The Fourth Amendment isn’t just a technicality, it’s a core safeguard of personal liberty, and warrantless entry into homes should never become routine. If ICE agents enter a home without a judicial warrant or clear exigent circumstances, defense counsel should aggressively pursue suppression of the arrest and any evidence collected during that entry. Clients need to understand that an internal bureaucratic memo does not alter constitutional law and that courts will be the ultimate arbiter of whether such practices can withstand constitutional scrutiny.”
The memo is almost certain to trigger rapid legal and political consequences, such as:
1. Federal litigation, including challenges in district courts on Fourth Amendment grounds
2. Congressional oversight hearings, especially given whistleblower concerns about how the memo was distributed and implemented
3. Policy debates over the scope of administrative warrants versus judicial warrants.
For now, individuals should be aware that consent remains a key factor. Absent a valid judicial warrant, consent to entry is of pivotal importance. This has always been the baseline advice from civil rights organizations and immigration defense attorneys, and in the current climate of heightened ICE presence and agents going door to door with administrative warrants, it has gained critical importance.
Contact a member of our award-winning criminal defense team at 617 880-6155 if you or someone you know has been apprehended by ICE using an administrative warrant. We have translation services in multiple languages and we work to serve our multicultural client base by ensuring each of our clients understands their rights and is supported throughout the process.
