Immigrant Rights Groups Sue ICE Over Policy Allowing Warrantless Home Entries
BOSTON – Immigrant rights organizations launched a legal challenge on Friday against a recently disclosed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) directive that authorizes agents to enter homes without warrants signed by federal judges. The lawsuit, filed in Boston federal court, contends the policy fundamentally undermines Fourth Amendment safeguards.
The case, brought by the Greater Boston Latino Network and the Brazilian Worker Center, targets a May memo from ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons. The document, made public through a whistleblower complaint, advises officers they may execute arrests using administrative warrants (Form I-205s) issued internally by Homeland Security officials—not by independent judges.
This represents a significant shift for ICE, whose agents have historically been barred from entering private homes or businesses without judicial warrants. The change comes amid heightened immigration enforcement under the Trump administration, which has prioritized mass deportations.
"The Fourth Amendment exists precisely to prevent government agents from breaking into people’s homes without judicial oversight," said Brooke Simone, an attorney with Lawyers for Civil Rights, which represents the plaintiffs. "This policy strips away a critical check on authority."
The lawsuit argues that administrative warrants lack the neutrality and rigor of judicial review, violating constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. It cites recent aggressive ICE operations in states like Minnesota, where tactics have been ruled unlawful by several courts. The filing also references the fatal shooting of two U.S. citizens by federal agents during Minneapolis protests this month, though not directly linking the deaths to the warrant policy.
A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson previously stated that individuals subject to administrative warrants "have had full due process and a final order of removal from an immigration judge." DHS did not immediately comment on the litigation.
Analysis: Legal experts note the case touches a core tension between immigration enforcement and constitutional privacy rights. If upheld, the policy could expand ICE’s operational latitude but may invite further judicial scrutiny and public backlash.
Voices from the Community
Carlos Mendez, community organizer in Chelsea, MA: "This isn’t just about paperwork—it’s about whether our homes are sanctuaries or open doors for enforcement. Many families now live in fear of a knock at any hour."
Professor Elena Vance, constitutional law scholar at Boston College: "The judiciary has consistently held that the home enjoys the highest Fourth Amendment protection. Allowing agency-issued warrants to replace judicial approval sets a dangerous precedent that could extend beyond immigration contexts."
Rebecca Shaw, advocate with Families for Secure Borders: "If you’re here illegally, you’ve broken the law. ICE needs tools to do its job, and endless judicial hurdles only shield those who shouldn’t be in the country. This lawsuit is an obstacle to public safety."
Miguel Torres, software developer and DACA recipient: "It’s terrifying. This policy effectively says that for immigrants—even those with pending cases or legal status—your home isn’t really yours. It normalizes a police-state approach."