WASHINGTON (FN) — Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers have been authorized to forcibly enter homes using only administrative warrants, according to an internal memo issued in May 2025 and revealed this week through a whistleblower complaint. The directive, first reported by the Associated Press, has sparked alarm among constitutional scholars and immigration advocates who say it undermines centuries-old protections against warrantless searches.
Traditionally, immigration officials have sought arrests of undocumented people through two means: judicial warrants, signed by a judge, or administrative warrants, signed by officials within the executive branch. Judicial warrants allow law enforcement to enter and search private homes or non-public areas of businesses, while administrative warrants do not. Most immigration arrests are carried out under administrative warrants because they require a lower bar to issue, but until now, officers were barred from using them to enter private property.
Judicial vs. Administrative Warrants: What’s the Difference?
Judicial warrants are issued by a neutral judge after reviewing evidence, granting law enforcement the authority to enter homes and private spaces. Administrative warrants, by contrast, are signed by executive branch officials and do not carry the same legal weight. They are easier to obtain but historically have not permitted entry into private residences. The newly disclosed memo blurs this distinction, authorizing ICE agents to knock, identify themselves, and use “reasonable force” to enter homes without judicial approval.
The revelation comes after months in which officers carrying out the president’s massive deportation mandate have used aggressive tactics, largely unchecked, to detain immigrants and citizens alike. Critics say the directive formalizes a pattern of enforcement that has already raised concerns about civil liberties.
“This administration’s general stance is that immigrants are ‘invaders’ and immigration officials should be allowed to expedite their arrest, detention and deportation,” said Kathleen Bush-Joseph, an attorney and analyst at the Migration Policy Institute. In doing so, she said, “they are pushing so many legal boundaries and doing things that have not been tried before in this way.”
Legal experts say the move bypasses neutral, third-party oversight and erodes Fourth Amendment protections enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. “The Bill of Rights, we thought, were the first 10 amendments,” said Mark Graber, a constitutional law scholar at the University of Maryland. “I guess now we’re down to nine.”
The Trump administration has long expressed frustration over limitations on immigration enforcement in private spaces, arguing that judicial warrants slow down operations. But critics warn the policy could lead to abuses, wrongful entries, and heightened fear in immigrant communities.
Civil liberties groups are expected to challenge the directive in court, setting up a legal battle over the scope of executive power and the balance between immigration enforcement and constitutional rights.
For many observers, the memo represents not just a domestic controversy but a test of how far executive authority can stretch in redefining fundamental civil liberties — a debate that is drawing international scrutiny.
