Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has reportedly crafted an internal memo that empowers its agents to enter homes and make arrests without judicial warrants, sparking intense debate over constitutional rights and government overreach. The memo, disclosed by Whistleblower Aid, was signed by Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons on May 12 and states that administrative warrants are sufficient for entering residences to execute removal orders.

Traditionally, the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution has required law enforcement to obtain a judicial warrant, backed by a judge’s approval, to enter private property without consent. However, this memo suggests that an administrative warrant, which does not involve a judge but rather an immigration officer, now suffices.

Critics argue that this interpretation of the Constitution is unprecedented and unsupported by case law. The DHS Office of the General Counsel contends that the Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and immigration regulations do not prohibit reliance on administrative warrants for arresting aliens at their residences. Yet, this stance appears to be a significant departure from established legal norms and has not been bolstered by any cited legal precedents.

Legal experts are voicing concerns. Professor Orin Kerr pointed out that administrative warrants traditionally do not authorize home entry as they lack judicial oversight, which is crucial to maintaining neutrality in law enforcement actions. The Supreme Court’s rulings in cases such as *Coolidge v. New Hampshire* and *Payton v. New York* have underscored the necessity of a neutral magistrate’s judgment in issuing warrants for home entries.

The implications of this memo are already visible. A report highlighted an incident where ICE agents, armed and clad in tactical gear, forcibly entered a Liberian man’s home in Minneapolis using an administrative warrant. DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin defended the policy, stating that individuals affected by these warrants have received due process through immigration proceedings. However, critics argue that due process in immigration court does not address the separate constitutional issue regarding unlawful entry into homes.

Moreover, the potential for judicial review of such actions is limited. The Supreme Court has been scaling back on the *Bivens* remedy, which would allow individuals to sue federal agents for constitutional violations, including unauthorized searches and entries.

This development raises significant concerns about the erosion of constitutional protections and the expansion of executive power in law enforcement activities related to immigration. Legal experts and civil rights advocates are calling for a reassessment of this policy and its implications for fundamental civil liberties in the United States.