A coalition of immigrant-rights organizations has filed a federal lawsuit challenging a controversial U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) policy that permits agents to enter private homes without a warrant signed by a judge, arguing that the practice violates the U.S. Constitution and undermines long-standing Fourth Amendment protections.
The complaint was filed Friday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts by the Greater Boston Latino Network and the Brazilian Worker Center, who contend that a memo issued last year by acting ICE chief Todd Lyons unlawfully authorizes ICE officers to rely on administrative warrants—instead of judicial ones—when entering residences to make immigration arrests. Administrative warrants, known as Form I-205s, are generally used to detain individuals with final removal orders and have not traditionally been interpreted to allow forcible home entry without judicial oversight.
In their lawsuit, the advocacy groups assert that allowing ICE to break into homes without a judge’s authorization erodes constitutional safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures and could lead to abuses of power. They also highlight recent incidents in Minneapolis, where aggressive enforcement operations, including warrantless entries, have sparked protests and drawn criticism after two U.S. citizens were killed during immigration enforcement actions.
The defendants include ICE and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which has defended the policy by maintaining that administrative warrants are valid because individuals subject to them have already received due process from immigration judges and final orders of removal. DHS officials argue that this process satisfies constitutional requirements, a contention that has drawn scrutiny from civil liberties advocates.
Legal experts and immigrant-rights advocates say the outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for federal immigration enforcement and privacy rights nationwide. They note that if the policy is upheld, it may expand the government’s power to enter private residences in immigration cases without the traditional judicial checks that protect individuals’ Fourth Amendment rights. Conversely, a ruling against the policy could reinforce judicial warrant requirements and constrain the scope of immigration agents’ authority.
A hearing date has not yet been set, and both sides are expected to file briefs outlining their constitutional and statutory arguments in the coming weeks.