The Disagreement over Judicial and Administrative Warrants for ICE

One of the sticking points successful the standoff betwixt Democrats and Republicans implicit backing for the Department of Homeland Security has been the Trump administration’s expanded usage of administrative warrants to forcibly participate people’s homes to marque migration arrests. Democrats reason the caller DHS argumentation runs afoul of the Constitution and person demanded migration officers get judicial warrants — a higher ineligible barroom that requires a judge’s support — to forcibly participate a home.

The Trump medication contends that immigrants successful the state illegally who person received a last bid of removal from migration judges are not entitled to Fourth Amendment protections — a presumption galore migration instrumentality experts dispute. And respective lawmakers person argued that the further request for judicial warrants would importantly curtail migration enforcement efforts.

Funding for DHS lapsed connected Feb. 14 arsenic Republicans person balked astatine Democrats’ demands to rein successful respective migration enforcement measures. Among different requests, Democrats are asking for a prohibition connected ICE agents wearing masks, requirements for displaying recognition and utilizing body-worn cameras, and the usage of judicial warrants connected backstage property. As Congress failed to walk authorities connected Feb. 13, parts of DHS, including the Transportation Security Administration, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and Coast Guard, volition beryllium affected by the lapse successful funding. ICE has capable wealth to support operating owed to billions successful funding from the Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act, passed past summer.

Debate implicit the usage of administrative versus judicial warrants has emerged arsenic 1 of the main impediments successful the negotiations.

During a property league connected Jan. 30, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries emphasized that Democrats would “not locomotion distant from” their request that “judicial warrants should beryllium required earlier ICE tin tempest homes and rip radical retired of their cars.” On Feb. 4, Jeffries joined Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer successful penning a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune to suggest “targeted enforcement,” wherever “DHS officers cannot participate backstage spot without a judicial warrant.” In the letter, Jeffries and Schumer projected 10 “common consciousness solutions that support law rights and guarantee liable instrumentality enforcement.”

Meanwhile, during a Feb. 1 interview connected CNN’s “State of the Union,” Republican Sen. Ron Johnson called the Democrats’ request for judicial warrants “completely unacceptable,” stating that “immigration has ever been enforced done administrative warrants.” Also, connected Feb. 3, House Speaker Johnson said that “adding an wholly caller furniture of judicial warrants” was “unimplementable.”

We’ll explicate the differences betwixt the 2 types of warrants and however the Trump administration’s usage of administrative warrants has departed from past practices.

Judicial vs. Administrative Warrants

According to the National Immigration Law Center, judicial warrants are “formal written [orders] authorizing a instrumentality enforcement serviceman to marque an arrest, a seizure, oregon a search.” They are issued by authorities and national courts and signed by judges oregon magistrate judges. As these warrants let search, seizures and arrests connected backstage property, they are much specific than administrative warrants, and see details similar the address, clip framework and targets of the search.

Administrative warrants authorize instrumentality enforcement officers with national agencies to marque an apprehension oregon seizure, but not a search. “An administrative warrant does not confer authorization to participate a location oregon backstage area,” the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service explained successful a 2021 report, linking to a 2007 DHS letter.

“Administrative warrants are not reviewed oregon signed by a national justice oregon adjacent an migration judge, they are reviewed and signed by migration officers,” John Gihon, an migration lawyer and past seat of the American Immigration Lawyers Association Central Florida Chapter, told america successful an email.

There are 2 forms of administrative warrants, known arsenic I-200 and I-205 forms. According to the American Immigration Council, I-200 forms are issued to apprehension “anyone national agents judge to beryllium contiguous successful the United States successful usurpation of national migration law.” Conversely, the I-205 signifier “authorizes an migration serviceman to apprehension and deport idiosyncratic who has antecedently been ordered removed from the United States.”

Under the Trump administration, migration arrests by ICE have increased considerably, and agents tin much rapidly get administrative, versus judicial, warrants, experts said.

Regarding Speaker Johnson’s characterization of judicial warrant requirements arsenic “unimplementable,” Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a lawyer and U.S. migration argumentation expert astatine the Migration Policy Institute, told america successful a telephone interrogation that erstwhile you see “the fig of arrests that the Department of Homeland Security says that they made past year, which is successful the hundreds of thousands … if they had to get judicial warrants for each of those people, that would surely beryllium a important administrative burden.”

Historically, Sen. Johnson’s connection that migration enforcement has “always” been conducted with administrative warrants is accurate. According to Gihon, “immigration instrumentality has ever been enforced done [administrative] warrants,” arsenic “[u]nder the Immigration and Nationality Act, a judicial warrant is not required to marque an migration arrest.”

However, the Trump medication has determined — contrary to the signifier of erstwhile administrations — that administrative warrants let migration officers to “arrest amerciable aliens with last orders of removal successful their homes,” arsenic DHS has said. This presumption has raised concerns astir the Fourth Amendment.

Fourth Amendment and Rights of Noncitizens

The Fourth Amendment protects “[t]he close of the radical to beryllium unafraid successful their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” That has historically prevented migration agents with lone an administrative warrant from forcibly entering homes.

In an analysis updated connected Feb. 4, Hannah James, a counsel successful the Brennan Center for Justice’s Liberty and National Security Program, wrote that “the location receives the highest extortion nether the Fourth Amendment,” and reiterated that the quality to participate a location with a judicial versus an administrative warrant is “very antithetic from a Fourth Amendment perspective.”

However, successful January, the Associated Press obtained a leaked May 12, 2025, memo written by Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, successful which helium said: “Although the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has not historically relied connected administrative warrants unsocial to apprehension aliens taxable to last orders of removal successful their spot of residence, the DHS Office of General Counsel has precocious determined that the U.S. Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the migration regulations bash not prohibit relying connected administrative warrants for this purpose.”

Lyons was referring to the I-205 warrants, which people noncitizens with a last bid of removal. According to an American Immigration Council fact sheet, last orders of removal are issued erstwhile “an migration justice finds a noncitizen to beryllium removable” and the noncitizen fails to record an entreaty wrong 30 days, waives the close to entreaty oregon has an entreaty dismissed by the Board of Immigration Appeals. The authorities tin past take to execute the removal order, wherever it notifies the noncitizen to surrender to ICE for deportation oregon look arrest.

In utilizing the I-205 warrant, the DHS memo said, migration officers should sound connected a resident’s doorway and place themselves. Then, they should “allow those wrong the residence a tenable accidental to enactment lawfully. Should the alien garbage admittance, ICE officers and agents should usage lone a indispensable and tenable magnitude of unit to participate the alien’s residence, pursuing due notification of the officer’s oregon agent’s authorization and intent to enter.”

In a Feb. 4 DHS press release mounting “the grounds consecutive connected administrative warrants,” DHS stated that determination is “broad judicial designation that amerciable aliens aren’t entitled to the aforesaid Fourth Amendment protections arsenic U.S. citizens.” Accordingly, the property merchandise said, “While administrative warrants whitethorn fulfill the Fourth Amendment for immoderate apprehension of an amerciable alien, ICE presently uses these warrants to participate an amerciable alien’s residence lone erstwhile the alien has received a last bid of removal from an Immigration Judge.”

Therefore, migration enforcement agencies person claimed the powerfulness to usage administrative warrants to participate backstage homes to apprehension noncitizens with last orders of removal. However, migration experts told america this mentation runs contrary to law protections, peculiarly the Fourth Amendment.

Bush-Joseph told america that “the knowing had been that immigrants, similar U.S. citizens, were protected by the Fourth Amendment from forcible introduction into their homes without a judicial warrant.”

James wrote that the Supreme Court “has ne'er held, nor suggested, that undocumented immigrants wrong the United States person lesser Fourth Amendment extortion than citizens oregon noncitizens with ineligible status.” James explained that “among little courts, the [prevailing view] is that undocumented immigrants wrong the United States person the aforesaid Fourth Amendment protections arsenic U.S. citizens.”

On Feb. 3, Speaker Johnson described his vexation with limitations connected administrative warrants, specifically erstwhile idiosyncratic runs into a backstage home. Johnson commented that “the contention has erupt wherever if idiosyncratic is … going to beryllium apprehended and they tally down a closed doorway and fastener the door. I mean, what is ICE expected to do?”

The DHS property merchandise echoed specified concerns, arguing that “[b]ecause Congress hasn’t created a mechanics to get a judicial warrant, this meant that nether erstwhile statesmanlike administrations, ICE would beryllium extracurricular the homes of fugitive aliens waiting for them to travel extracurricular earlier arresting them.” DHS said, “Illegal aliens rapidly identified this loophole” and would “openly taunt the ICE officers” waiting outside.

When asked astir the concern Johnson described, Gihon said via email, “Prior to the existent Trump term, migration officers were trained not to participate backstage residences oregon backstage areas of nationalist spot without consent oregon an objection to the 4th amendment’s warrant requirement.”

We reached retired to Johnson’s bureau for comment, but did not person a response.

The May 2025 DHS memo said that “standard exceptions to the Fourth Amendment warrant request use arsenic successful the discourse of Form I-205 warrants,” including getting consent to spell into a person’s location and “exigent circumstances,” specified arsenic “hot pursuit,” risks of grounds demolition oregon imaginable violence, attempts to flee, and “a important hazard of harm to the persons progressive oregon to the instrumentality enforcement process if the serviceman oregon cause indispensable hold for a warrant.”

According to a 2021 Congressional Research Service report, the hot pursuit doctrine “provides that constabulary whitethorn prosecute a fleeing felony fishy into a home, erstwhile they person probable origin to marque an apprehension and erstwhile they acceptable that apprehension successful question successful a nationalist place.”

However, Gihon told america that the blistery pursuit objection wouldn’t use to arrests for civilian migration violations. “The U.S. Supreme Court has held that blistery pursuit does not adjacent widen to each transgression offenses,” helium said, citing the 2021 Supreme Court lawsuit Lange v. California.

Referring to the DHS concerns astir judicial warrants, James wrote that “DHS’s presumption that it lacks capable entree to judicial warrants is not a valid ground for the bureau to dispense with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment,” and that “constraints connected ICE’s quality to get judicial warrants … whitethorn precise good bespeak Congress’s decided judgement that civilian migration violations should not beryllium pursued by entering people’s homes.”

Finally, regarding the DHS presumption that ICE tin usage administrative warrants to participate a person’s residence erstwhile determination is simply a last bid of removal, Gihon told america that helium was unaware of “any erstwhile controlling mentation of administrative oregon law law” that would licence specified entry.

Ultimately, the contented could beryllium decided by the courts. James wrote that “the case instrumentality successful this country is sparse,” citing 3 rulings by District Courts. “The paucity of lawsuit instrumentality is apt successful portion due to the fact that DHS has historically conceded that administrative apprehension warrants bash not authorize ICE officers to participate people’s homes to apprehension them. As a result, courts person seldom had juncture to remark connected the issue.”

---

Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not judge advertising. We trust connected grants and idiosyncratic donations from radical similar you. Please see a donation. Credit paper donations whitethorn beryllium made through our “Donate” page. If you similar to springiness by check, nonstop to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, P.O. Box 58100, Philadelphia, PA 19102. 

The station The Disagreement implicit Judicial and Administrative Warrants for ICE appeared archetypal connected FactCheck.org.