A newly revealed internal memorandum shows that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is asserting a power the Constitution does not give it: the authority to forcibly enter private homes without a judge-signed warrant.
The May 12, 2025 memo — attributed to ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons and disclosed by whistleblowers to Sen. Richard Blumenthal — instructs ICE officers that administrative immigration warrants are sufficient to enter homes during deportation operations, even without consent.
If accurately described, this policy is not a gray area.
It is flatly unconstitutional.
The Fourth Amendment Is Not Optional
The Fourth Amendment draws one of the Constitution’s brightest lines:
“The right of the people to be secure in their houses… against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the home is entitled to the highest level of constitutional protection — more than cars, more than streets, more than workplaces.
This is not controversial law. It is settled law.
Payton v. New York (1980)
The Court ruled unequivocally that government agents may not enter a home to make an arrest without a judicial warrant, absent exigent circumstances or consent.
“The Fourth Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house.”
ICE’s memo attempts to erase that line.
Administrative Warrants Are Not Real Warrants
ICE relies on Form I-205 administrative warrants, which are:
Issued by ICE officials
Reviewed by no judge
Approved by no neutral magistrate
Supported by no judicial finding of probable cause
The Supreme Court has already rejected this exact end-run around the Constitution.
Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971)
The Court held that warrants issued by executive officials — rather than judges — are constitutionally invalid for home searches.
The Fourth Amendment requires a “neutral and detached magistrate,” not an agency policing itself.
An ICE officer signing off on ICE authority is the very abuse the Fourth Amendment was written to prevent.
Immigration Status Does Not Void the Constitution
Federal courts have been clear for decades: constitutional protections apply inside the United States, regardless of citizenship.
INS v. Lopez-Mendoza (1984)
While addressing immigration proceedings, the Court acknowledged that Fourth Amendment violations by immigration agents are real and cognizable — even if remedies differ in civil deportation contexts.
More bluntly:
Immigration enforcement does not create a Fourth Amendment exemption zone.
No “Immigration Exception” to the Constitution Exists
ICE sometimes gestures toward “civil enforcement” as if that magically suspends constitutional rights. Courts have rejected that logic repeatedly.
Camara v. Municipal Court (1967)
Even civil inspections require warrants to enter homes.
If housing inspectors need judicial warrants, armed federal agents certainly do.
This Policy Invites Abuse — and Lawsuits
By encouraging forced entry without judicial warrants, ICE is:
Violating clearly established law
Exposing officers to civil liability
Risking suppression of evidence
Creating grounds for constitutional tort claims
Most dangerously, it conditions agents to believe obedience to an internal memo outweighs obedience to the Constitution — a position courts have never accepted.
“I was just following orders” has never been a defense to unconstitutional searches.
This Is Not Law Enforcement — It’s Executive Overreach
The Founders wrote the Fourth Amendment precisely to stop this kind of behavior: armed agents breaking into homes on their own say-so.
ICE’s memo does not reinterpret the Constitution.
It defies it.
If allowed to stand, this policy would establish a precedent that any executive agency can:
Write its own warrants
Bypass judges
Invade homes
And justify it later
That is not immigration enforcement.
That is rule by executive decree.
The Bottom Line
There is no serious constitutional argument that allows ICE to forcibly enter homes without a judge-signed warrant.
None.
If courts remain faithful to precedent, this policy will not survive judicial review — and the officials who authored it may find that the Fourth Amendment is far less flexible than their memo assumes.
No comments:
Post a Comment