ICE Warrant Policy Sparks Constitutional Debate

MINNEAPOLIS — Vice President JD Vance defended the federal government's immigration enforcement practices Thursday during a visit to Minneapolis, amid growing controversy over a policy change that allows immigration officers to enter homes using warrants not signed by judges. The debate centers on whether these "administrative warrants" violate constitutional protections against unreasonable searches, raising questions about the balance between immigration enforcement and individual rights.

At the heart of the controversy is a May 12, 2025 memo signed by Acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Todd Lyons. The memo authorizes ICE officers to use force to enter homes based solely on administrative warrants—internal documents signed by ICE officials rather than judges—to arrest individuals with final deportation orders. This marks a departure from past procedures, where entering residences based only on administrative warrants was not permitted. Historically, ICE told officers they needed a judicial warrant, signed by a judge or magistrate, to enter private homes. Administrative warrants, by contrast, are issued by officials within the Department of Homeland Security based on a finding that someone is removable from the United States. Unlike judicial warrants, they have not been reviewed by an independent court.

Critics argue the policy violates the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Legal experts and advocacy groups contend that allowing forced home entry without a judge's approval undermines a fundamental constitutional safeguard. Some lower courts have previously ruled that ICE agents violated the Fourth Amendment by forcibly entering homes without judicial warrants when no recognized exceptions existed. Whistleblower Aid, a legal advocacy organization, said the policy "flies in the face of longstanding federal law enforcement training material and policies, all rooted in constitutional assessments." The organization cited past ICE and Department of Homeland Security training materials stating that entering residences based solely on administrative warrants can cause violations of Fourth Amendment protections.

The administration defends the practice, pointing to legal precedent and the nature of immigration enforcement. The Department of Homeland Security stated that "for decades, the Supreme Court and Congress have recognized the propriety of administrative warrants in cases of immigration enforcement." Officials emphasize that people subject to these warrants have already received full due process, including a final order of removal from an immigration judge. During his Minneapolis appearance, Vice President Vance said "nobody is talking about doing immigration enforcement without a warrant," though he did not specify which type of warrant he meant. ICE Associate Director Marcos Charles stated that agents only enter homes during emergency pursuits or with criminal or administrative arrest warrants, which courts have deemed justified.

The policy change has emerged as immigration enforcement expands nationwide, and legal challenges appear likely. The underlying question—whether administrative warrants alone can authorize forced home entry—remains unsettled in the courts. While the Supreme Court has long held that the Fourth Amendment generally requires judicial warrants for nonconsensual home entries, absent certain exceptions, it has also recognized administrative warrants in some regulatory contexts. As enforcement operations continue, civil liberties advocates and government attorneys are preparing for what could become a landmark constitutional test about the scope of federal immigration powers and the protection of individual rights.

Found a mistake? Have a news tip or feedback to share? Contact our newsroom using the button below:

Brought to you by (click me!)