A newly filed federal lawsuit is challenging U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s authority to enter private homes without warrants issued by federal judges, raising significant
constitutional questions about immigration enforcement and Fourth Amendment protections.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Boston, was brought by two immigrant advocacy organizations that argue a recent internal policy change by
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement unlawfully expands the agency’s power to conduct home arrests without proper judicial oversight. The plaintiffs contend that the policy violates long-established constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Administrative Warrants at the Center of the Dispute
At the heart of the lawsuit is ICE’s reliance on so-called administrative warrants, also known as Form I-205 warrants. These documents are signed by immigration officials rather than neutral judges and have traditionally been used to authorize the detention of noncitizens already in custody.
According to the complaint, a 2025 memorandum issued by ICE leadership instructs officers that administrative warrants are sufficient to enter private residences when seeking individuals with final orders of removal. Immigrant rights groups argue this guidance represents a sharp departure from decades of law enforcement practice, which generally requires a warrant signed by a judge to enter a home without consent.
Legal experts have long held that the Fourth Amendment requires judicial warrants for nonconsensual home entries, except in limited emergency circumstances. The plaintiffs argue that ICE’s policy attempts to bypass that constitutional safeguard by equating administrative paperwork with judicial authorization.
Plaintiffs Cite Fourth Amendment Concerns
The lawsuit asserts that ICE’s policy undermines the Fourth Amendment by eliminating the role of judges in determining whether law enforcement may enter a person’s home. The complaint warns that allowing warrantless entries based on administrative documents exposes families to unlawful searches and increases the
risk of confrontational enforcement actions.
Advocacy groups involved in the case say the policy creates fear in immigrant communities and discourages individuals from asserting their legal rights. They also argue that many residents may not understand the difference between administrative warrants and judicial warrants, making them vulnerable to coercion during enforcement encounters.
The case was filed in federal court in Massachusetts, where plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to block ICE from conducting home entries without judge-signed warrants.
Homeland Security Defends Enforcement Authority
The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, has defended the policy. Agency officials argue that individuals targeted under administrative warrants have already gone through immigration court proceedings and received final removal orders from immigration judges.
DHS has maintained that these prior proceedings satisfy due process requirements and that the agency’s enforcement practices comply with both immigration law and constitutional standards. Government lawyers have reportedly concluded that neither federal statutes nor the Constitution explicitly prohibit ICE from entering homes using administrative warrants under certain circumstances.
Despite those claims, civil liberties advocates counter that removal orders do not authorize physical entry into private homes and that only judges have the constitutional authority to approve such intrusions.
Whistleblower Complaint Brought Policy to Light
The internal guidance became public after a whistleblower complaint was filed by a legal advocacy organization representing DHS employees. The complaint alleged that the policy was adopted without adequate legal justification and placed officers at risk of violating constitutional rights.
According to the lawsuit, the whistleblower materials reveal internal disagreements within the agency over the legality of the approach. Plaintiffs argue that those concerns highlight the need for judicial intervention before the policy becomes more widely implemented.
Broader Implications for Immigration Enforcement
The lawsuit marks one of the most direct legal challenges to ICE’s use of administrative warrants for home entries and could have nationwide implications for immigration enforcement practices. If the court sides with the plaintiffs, ICE could be required to obtain judge signed warrants before entering homes, potentially
limiting the scope of residential enforcement operations.
Legal analysts note that the case may also influence how courts interpret the balance between immigration enforcement authority and constitutional protections. A ruling against ICE could reaffirm the longstanding principle that the home receives the highest level of Fourth Amendment protection, regardless of immigration status.
Case to Watch in Federal Court
The outcome of the lawsuit will be closely watched by immigration attorneys, civil rights groups, and federal agencies alike. With constitutional issues at stake, the case could ultimately set an important precedent governing how immigration enforcement actions are carried out inside the United States.
As the litigation proceeds, the court will be asked to decide whether administrative convenience can outweigh the requirement for judicial oversight when the government seeks to enter private homes a question that goes to the core of constitutional protections under American law.
Explore thousands of verified legal job opportunities across law firms, corporations, and government agencies. Stay ahead in your legal career with exclusive listings, career resources, and market insights—
visit LawCrossing today to find your next legal role.
