ICE Memo Authorizes Warrantless Home Entries Using Administrative Forms
Internal May 12 memo directs agents to use Form I-205 administrative warrants to enter residences absent judicial approval, whistleblowers and officials say.
ICE says it doesn't need judicial warrants to enter homes. What to know.

ICE has been entering homes without judicial warrants since last summer, sources say

Not opening the door to ICE may no longer stop officers

ICE says its officers can forcibly enter homes during immigration operations without judicial warrants: 2025 memo
Overview
Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons issued a May 12 memo directing officers to use Form I-205 administrative warrants to enter residences and arrest people with final removal orders, according to whistleblowers who shared the document with Sen. Richard Blumenthal.
The directive departs from longstanding DHS and ICE policy that required judicial warrants for forced entries, a shift that coincides with an expanded deportation campaign and a hiring surge that more than doubled ICE's enforcement staff.
Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin confirmed DHS is using administrative warrants in some entries and said those served have had "full due process," while civil liberties groups and legal scholars contend the practice violates the Fourth Amendment.
Reports and court records show agents forcibly entered homes, including a Jan. 11 Minneapolis raid and a Jan. 18 incident involving ChongLy Thao, where relatives said no judicial warrant was shown, and at least one federal judge has barred such entries in the Central District of California.
Congressional demands for hearings from Sen. Richard Blumenthal and expected litigation are likely, and DHS and ICE face pending legal challenges and possible court orders that could restrict or block the memo's implementation.
Analysis
Center-leaning sources frame this story as a legally fraught policy change by foregrounding whistleblower disclosures and civil-liberties criticism, using charged headlines ("forcibly entering," "sweeping reversal") and placing ACLU and protest reactions early. Editorial choices emphasize constitutional stakes; official DHS defenses appear later and are presented with qualifiers.