Federal immigration agents have begun operating under an internal directive that authorizes them to enter private homes using administrative warrants — signed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials and not by judges — in cases involving individuals with final deportation orders.
The change was outlined in a May 2025 memo signed by Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons and has already sparked legal challenges and public controversy. Critics say the policy upends long-standing guidance meant to respect constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
What the Memo Says
According to internal documents obtained by news outlets, the memo asserts that Homeland Security’s legal counsel concluded existing law does not prohibit administrative warrants from being used as the sole authority to enter a home to arrest someone with a final order of removal. Agents are directed to knock and announce between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. and may use “necessary and reasonable” force if occupants do not comply.
Historically, administrative warrants were used for immigration arrests but did not authorize forcible entry without a separate judicial warrant. Legal experts argue this distinction is central to Fourth Amendment rights protecting against warrantless searches.
Legal Challenges and Lawsuits
The policy has met swift pushback from civil liberties advocates and some state officials. Keith Ellison, Minnesota’s Attorney General, filed a federal lawsuit in January 2026 alleging that the enforcement surge — including forced entries without judicial warrants — violates constitutional rights.
Federal courts have been actively involved. A lower court previously issued an injunction limiting certain enforcement tactics, but an appeals court temporarily stayed that order, allowing some actions to continue while the case proceeds.
The memo’s implementation occurs amid “Operation Metro Surge,” a large immigration enforcement campaign in the Twin Cities that has drawn protests and clashes between federal agents and local residents. Critics highlight a series of controversial encounters, including forced home entries and civilian detentions, as part of rising tensions.
Public and Legal Criticism
Civil liberties groups and immigrant rights advocates argue that the policy undermines Fourth Amendment protections that generally require judicial oversight before law enforcement can breach private residences. They note that prior guidance advised immigrant communities that they did not have to open doors without a judicial warrant.
Opponents also cite high-profile incidents — including a Minnesota resident detained at gunpoint without a judicial warrant — as examples of how aggressive tactics can cause harm and erode public trust.
Federal Government’s Position
The Department of Homeland Security defends the memo, arguing that individuals subject to final removal orders have been afforded “full due process,” and that administrative warrants with probable cause may properly support enforcement actions. DHS spokespeople maintain the memo reflects legal interpretations of existing law.
What’s Next
As litigation moves forward, the courts will weigh constitutional claims against the government’s authority to interpret immigration law and enforcement powers. The outcome could have broad implications for federal law enforcement practices and civil liberties nationwide.
