What the Fourth Amendment Requires Before ICE Can Enter Your Home

Last updated 4 hours ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

Federal agents broke into ChongLy “Very Scott” Thao’s St. Paul home with the wrong address. They knew this within minutes—the person they were seeking no longer lived there and the intended targets were fugitives still at large, not incarcerated. Thao had been dragged from his house in freezing January weather wearing only underwear and sandals, held at gunpoint by federal personnel who refused to show a judge’s signature on any warrant. The man they’d meant to arrest was a U.S. citizen with no criminal record.

This wasn’t a rogue operation. It was policy.

In May 2025, the Department of Homeland Security reversed decades of practice. An internal memo claimed ICE could force entry into American homes using only administrative warrants—documents that ICE personnel sign themselves. No judge reviews them. No independent judge with no stake in the case evaluates whether the location is correct or the person lives there. The same agency that wants to conduct the arrest also approves it, which is precisely what the Fourth Amendment was designed to prevent.

Federal judges have started pushing back. In January 2026, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Bryan ordered the immediate release of Garrison Gibson, a Liberian immigrant whose front door ICE destroyed with a battering ram while holding only an administrative warrant. Judge Bryan’s ruling was blunt: “This arrest violated the Fourth Amendment.”

The constitutional question is straightforward: Does the Fourth Amendment mean what it says when immigration enforcement comes to your door?

What the Fourth Amendment Requires

The Supreme Court has spent four decades establishing that before the government invades your home, someone independent—not part of the agency seeking entry—must evaluate the facts and decide whether sufficient cause exists. A judge standing between you and the government protects against arbitrary government intrusions. When the same agency that wants to conduct an arrest also approves the warrant, that safeguard disappears entirely.

For decades, DHS acknowledged this. Then Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons signed a memo saying the opposite, concluding that administrative warrants are sufficient without detailed legal analysis.

Judicial Warrants vs. Administrative Warrants

A judicial warrant comes from a judge. Someone files a sworn statement with specific facts showing why they believe the person is subject to removal and lives at the listed location. A federal judge (either a magistrate or district judge)—someone with no stake in the investigation—reviews it and decides whether to sign. The warrant must describe the specific location to be searched and the person to be seized. It expires after a set period, typically days or weeks, so it doesn’t grow stale.

An administrative warrant comes from ICE. A supervisory agent within the agency signs Form I-205, the “Warrant of Removal.” No judge reviews it. No independent magistrate evaluates whether the facts support entry. The same agency that wants to make the arrest also authorizes it.

Federal regulations are explicit about what administrative warrants cannot do: “An ICE administrative warrant does not authorize a search.” If it doesn’t authorize a search, it cannot authorize forcing open someone’s front door, which is the most invasive kind of search the Fourth Amendment recognizes.

If ICE shows up with a judicial warrant, you must comply. If they show up with an administrative warrant, you can—and should—refuse entry. The ACLU’s guidance is unambiguous: “An administrative warrant does not grant ICE permission to enter or search your house.”

The May 2025 memo trains ICE to ignore this distinction.

How to Identify Which Warrant You’re Looking At

If ICE appears at your door claiming to have a warrant, ask them to slide it under the door or hold it up to a window. Don’t open the door to examine it. Look at the top of the document.

A judicial warrant will say “United States District Court” or name a state court. It will be signed by a judge or magistrate judge—you’ll see their title and signature. It will specify your exact location and name the person to be arrested. The date should be recent, typically within days or weeks.

An administrative warrant will say “Department of Homeland Security” at the top. It will be Form I-200 (Warrant for Arrest) or Form I-205 (Warrant of Removal). The signature will be from an ICE agent or immigration official, not a judge. If you see “Immigration Judge” as the issuer, understand that immigration judges are not judicial personnel for Fourth Amendment purposes—they’re government employees, not independent judges. A warrant signed by an immigration judge is still an administrative warrant.

If what you’re looking at is an administrative warrant, you are not legally required to open your door. Say clearly, through the closed door: “I do not consent to a search. I do not consent to entry into my home. You do not have a judicial warrant.” Repeat this. If possible, have someone record you saying it.

The Three Legal Ways ICE Can Enter Your Home

ICE can legally enter your home in exactly three circumstances: with a judicial warrant, with genuine consent, or in true emergencies—what lawyers call exigent circumstances.

Judicial Warrants

A judicial warrant must come from a federal judge (either a magistrate or district judge). The warrant must be based on a sworn statement with specific facts showing why they believe the person is subject to removal and lives at the location listed. The warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched and the person to be seized. It must be executed within a specified time period, typically days or weeks from issuance.

This is the same standard that applies to the FBI investigating federal crimes. The delay is a feature, not a bug—it gives judges time to verify that the location is correct and the facts support entry.

Consent

ICE can enter if someone with authority over the home voluntarily consents. “Authority over the home” typically means the owner, leaseholder, or someone who regularly lives there. A guest staying temporarily probably cannot consent to a search of areas they don’t control.

The consent must be genuinely voluntary. It cannot be coerced by an assertion of official authority. If agents claim they have a warrant when they don’t, or claim they have authority to enter when they don’t, any consent obtained through those false claims is invalid.

If multiple people with authority over the home are present and one consents while another objects, the objection wins. The Supreme Court held in Georgia v. Randolph that “a physically present co-occupant’s stated refusal to permit entry renders warrantless entry and search unreasonable and invalid.” If you say “I do not consent” and your spouse says “come in,” the law sides with you.

Consent can be limited in scope. You can consent to personnel entering your living room without consenting to a search of bedrooms. You can consent to answering questions at the door without consenting to entry. You can revoke consent at any time by saying “I want you to leave now.”

True Emergencies

The Supreme Court has made clear that police cannot manufacture exigent circumstances through their own conduct. You can’t create the emergency that justifies warrantless entry.

For immigration enforcement, true emergencies should be rare. Immigration violations don’t typically involve danger to public safety or risk of evidence destruction. Courts have been skeptical of emergency claims in immigration cases.

What to Do If ICE Comes to Your Door

Don’t open the door. Ask through the closed door who they are and what they want. Ask if they have a warrant. If they claim to have one, ask them to slide it under the door or hold it up to a window. Don’t open the door to retrieve or examine a warrant.

If the warrant is administrative—if it says “Department of Homeland Security” at the top and is signed by an ICE agent rather than a judge—say clearly: “I do not consent to a search. I do not consent to entry into my home. You do not have a judicial warrant.” Say this loudly enough that neighbors might hear. If possible, have someone record you saying it.

If they force entry anyway, don’t physically resist. Physical resistance can result in charges against you and won’t prevent the entry. Instead, continue repeating: “I do not consent to this search. I do not consent to your presence in my home.” Ask to speak with a lawyer immediately. If you can safely do so, record the interaction on your phone. Capture badge numbers, names, descriptions, and their actions.

Exercise your right to remain silent. Don’t answer questions about your immigration status, where you were born, how you entered the country, or any other immigration-related matter. Simply state: “I wish to remain silent and I want to speak with a lawyer.” They may continue asking questions. You are not required to answer.

Don’t sign anything without first speaking with a lawyer. ICE may present forms and claim you must sign them. You don’t. Signing certain immigration forms can waive your right to a hearing before an immigration judge.

Document everything immediately after they leave or after you’re released. Write down: the time they arrived and departed; the number present and their descriptions; badge numbers and names if visible; how they identified themselves; which rooms they entered; what they searched; what they took; any statements they made; who they interviewed; whether they used physical force. If you were injured, photograph injuries. Get names and contact information of witnesses, including neighbors who may have observed the entry.

Legal Remedies for Fourth Amendment Violations

If ICE enters your home without a judicial warrant, without valid consent, and without genuine emergency circumstances, your Fourth Amendment rights have been violated. The law provides several potential remedies, though accessing them is neither easy nor certain.

Suppression in Immigration Proceedings

You can file a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the unconstitutional entry, arguing it cannot be used against you in removal proceedings. However, the Supreme Court held in INS v. Lopez-Mendoza that evidence obtained illegally cannot automatically be thrown out in civil immigration proceedings. Even if evidence was obtained unconstitutionally, it can potentially still be used if the government shows that excluding it would have little deterrent effect on future violations.

Suppression motions are weaker in immigration court than in court for other offenses. However, courts have suggested that if Fourth Amendment violations become widespread or egregious, evidence exclusion might apply even in immigration proceedings.

Habeas Corpus Petitions

If you’re detained following an allegedly unlawful entry, you can file a habeas corpus petition in federal district court challenging your detention. However, this relief doesn’t necessarily end ICE’s authority to detain you. The petition addresses how you were arrested, not whether you can ultimately be deported.

Lawsuits for Damages

A Supreme Court ruling allows you to sue federal personnel personally for constitutional violations. If you’re injured by a warrantless home entry—physically, through property damage, or through violation of your constitutional rights—you may be able to sue ICE personnel for damages.

However, these lawsuits have become increasingly difficult to win. Federal personnel can raise qualified immunity—a legal shield that protects them from being sued unless the violation was obviously illegal. The Supreme Court interprets “obviously illegal” narrowly—the specific facts of your case must closely match a prior court decision.

Systemic Litigation

State attorneys general and civil rights organizations have filed lawsuits seeking to order ICE to stop using administrative warrants to enter homes. Minnesota’s Attorney General sued DHS and ICE arguing that Operation Metro Surge violates the First and Tenth Amendments and the Administrative Procedure Act. These lawsuits seek not damages for individual victims but court orders preventing ICE from continuing the practice.

If plaintiffs prevail, courts could issue nationwide injunctions prohibiting ICE from relying on administrative warrants for home entry. That would force ICE to obtain judicial warrants, effectively overriding the May 2025 memo through judicial decree.

Congressional Response

In early February 2026, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer laid out ten demands, including requiring personnel to obtain judicial warrants before entering private property without consent, banning personnel from wearing masks, requiring visible identification, establishing body camera requirements, ending racial profiling, and implementing uniform use-of-force standards.

In a February 2, 2026 letter to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin and other Democratic leaders wrote: “ICE does not have the authority to overturn any legal precedent, let alone ignore one of the foundational constitutional rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights.” They demanded that DHS rescind the May 2025 memo and ensure personnel obtain judicial warrants before any nonconsensual entry into a private residence.

Some Democratic lawmakers have suggested Congress may need to explicitly amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify that ICE must obtain judicial warrants for home entry. The immigration law doesn’t clearly say whether ICE needs warrants for homes, and ICE has exploited that ambiguity.

Practical Impact of Requiring Judicial Warrants

If Congress mandates judicial warrants for ICE home entry, ICE would need to petition federal magistrate judges for warrants, providing sworn statements with specific facts showing why they believe the person is subject to removal, resides at the specific location, and is likely to be present. Judges would act as gatekeepers, preventing entries based on mistaken locations or insufficient information. The wrong-home entries that occurred might be prevented if a judge had to independently verify locations and residency.

The process would be slower than the current system of self-issued administrative warrants. That would give lawyers and advocacy organizations more opportunity to contest entries and might reduce the arbitrary quality of enforcement.

Most importantly, it would align immigration enforcement with the constitutional standard that has applied to all other federal law enforcement for decades. The FBI, DEA, and ATF obtain judicial warrants from federal judges before entering homes. Requiring ICE to do the same would end the anomalous legal regime that has permitted immigration enforcement to operate differently.

Requiring judicial warrants wouldn’t eliminate immigration enforcement. People with final removal orders could still be arrested and deported. Many ICE arrests occur in public places, at workplaces, and during traffic stops, none of which require judicial warrants. Judicial warrants would close a specific gap: the most intrusive form of enforcement, warrantless entry into homes, without proper constitutional authorization.

Constitutional Implications Beyond Immigration

When ICE claims authority to enter homes with self-issued administrative warrants, it’s claiming precisely the kind of general authority the Fourth Amendment prohibits. The fact that the target is a civil immigration violation rather than another offense doesn’t change the constitutional analysis. As the Brennan Center for Justice has noted, “ICE administrative warrants lack the independent assurance guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment” because they fail the requirement that an independent judge approve the warrant.

If ICE can enter homes without judicial warrants, what prevents other federal agencies from claiming the same authority? Could the IRS enter homes with administrative warrants to collect taxes? Could the EPA enter with administrative warrants to investigate environmental violations? Could OSHA enter workplaces and attached residences with administrative warrants? If courts accept this reasoning, other agencies could claim the same power.

Whether that line holds depends on what happens as Congress negotiates DHS funding. The Fourth Amendment’s text hasn’t changed. What’s changed is an agency’s willingness to ignore it, and the question of whether the other branches of government will force compliance.

ChongLy Thao’s experience illustrates what’s at stake. He was a U.S. citizen in his own home when armed federal personnel burst through his door without a judicial warrant, held him at gunpoint in freezing weather wearing only underwear, and discovered minutes later they had the wrong person entirely. That’s what happens when constitutional safeguards are treated as optional.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.