WASHINGTON — A recently revealed internal memo from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has sparked outrage from Democratic lawmakers and constitutional rights experts. The memo reportedly authorizes ICE agents to enter homes—using force if necessary—without a judicial arrest warrant, relying instead on administrative warrants in cases where a final deportation order has been issued.
According to the document, obtained by the Associated Press and released by WhistleblowerAid.org on May 12, 2025, administrative warrants are issued internally by immigration authorities and do not require a judge’s signature. This contrasts with judicial arrest warrants, which are based on probable cause established before a court.
Critics argue the memo represents a significant shift from longstanding guidance prioritizing adherence to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) called the policy “appalling” and demanded an investigation. He stated in a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and acting ICE Director Todd Lyons that the guidance is a “flagrant disregard for the lawful protections” safeguarding the American public.
While Trump administration officials, including Vice President JD Vance, defended the guidance as legal, concerns remain about its potential impact on civil liberties. Vance acknowledged the possibility of legal challenges, stating the administration “would follow that law” if courts rule against the policy.
WhistleblowerAid.org’s complaint to the Senate alleges the memo violates the 4th Amendment’s guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure. The group claims the policy was not widely distributed, with some agents receiving only verbal briefings and others being denied copies. However, the guidance is reportedly now being incorporated into training for new ICE hires.
Recent incidents, such as the forceful entry into the home of naturalized U.S. citizen ChongLy “Scott” Thao in Minneapolis on Sunday, have heightened tensions. Homeland Security stated agents were investigating sex offenders, but they were reportedly at the wrong address. Additionally, the shooting death of 37-year-old Renee Good, a U.S. citizen, by an ICE agent earlier this month has contributed to the escalating concerns.
The Department of Homeland Security, in a statement on X, asserted that in every case utilizing an administrative warrant, the individual has already undergone due process and received a final order of removal from a federal immigration judge. The department also stated that an individual refusing to leave after a final order is considered “a fugitive from justice.”
The House of Representatives passed a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security on Thursday, with a vote of 220-207, despite objections from some Democrats who cited the ICE memo as justification for their opposition.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between an administrative warrant and an arrest warrant?
An administrative warrant is issued internally by immigration authorities and does not require a judge’s signature. An arrest warrant is a court order based on probable cause that a crime has been committed.
What has been the response from within the government?
Trump administration officials, including Vice President JD Vance, have defended the guidance as appropriate and legal. However, Kerry Doyle, a former top attorney at ICE and Homeland Security, stated she “profoundly disagree[s] with their interpretation of the Constitution.”
What could happen next?
The policy is likely to face legal challenges, as indicated by Vice President Vance’s comments. Depending on court rulings, ICE could be forced to revert to requiring judicial warrants for home entries. Further, continued controversy could lead to increased scrutiny of ICE’s practices by Congress and advocacy groups.
How will this new guidance impact the relationship between immigrant communities and law enforcement?
