The memo permits entry to homes of people with final orders of removal, requires officers to notify residents and limit entry to daytime hours, but allows use of force if entry is refused.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement has authorized officers to forcibly enter people’s homes based solely on administrative warrants, according to an internal memo obtained by The Associated Press. The directive, issued in May 2025, marks a sharp reversal of longstanding guidance meant to respect Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches.

The move comes as the Trump administration dramatically expands immigration enforcement nationwide, with thousands of officers deployed in cities including Minneapolis, where recent arrests have raised questions about agency tactics. The memo, signed by Todd Lyons, ICE’s acting director, authorizes forced entry to homes of people with final orders of removal from immigration judges or the Board of Immigration Appeals.

For years, immigrant advocates and legal aid groups have advised people not to open their doors to ICE agents unless shown a warrant signed by a judge. That guidance is grounded in Supreme Court rulings that generally prohibit law enforcement from entering a home without judicial approval. The ICE directive directly undermines that advice at a time when immigration arrests are accelerating under the Trump administration’s enforcement push.

What the Memo Authorizes

But the memo sets operational limits for entry. Officers may enter between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. They must knock on the door, identify themselves, and explain their purpose. People inside must be given a “reasonable chance to act lawfully.” If they refuse entry, the memo states, officers may use “only a necessary and reasonable amount of force to enter the alien’s residence.”

On the Ground in Minneapolis

The AP witnessed the policy in action on January 11 in Minneapolis, when ICE officers rammed through the front door of a home with tactical gear and rifles drawn. The man inside, Garrison Gibson, had a deportation order from 2023. Documents reviewed by the AP showed the agents possessed only an administrative warrant — meaning no judge had authorized the raid on private property.

Spreading Within the Agency

The memo has not been broadly shared within ICE, according to a whistleblower complaint obtained by The Associated Press. But its contents have been used to train new officers deployed across the country. New ICE hires and those in training are being instructed to follow the memo’s guidance instead of written training materials that contradict it, according to the whistleblower disclosure.

Whistleblower Aid, a nonprofit legal organization, said it represents two anonymous U.S. government officials disclosing the memo and its implementation. One whistleblower was allowed to view the memo only in a supervisor’s presence and then had to return it without taking notes. Another whistleblower was able to access and lawfully disclose the document to Congress.

The memo cites a recent determination from the DHS Office of the General Counsel: “Although the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has not historically relied on administrative warrants alone to arrest aliens subject to final orders of removal in their place of residence, the DHS Office of the General Counsel has recently determined that the U.S. Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the immigration regulations do not prohibit relying on administrative warrants for this purpose.” The memo provides no details about how that determination was made.

Homeland Security spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement that everyone served with an administrative warrant has already had “full due process and a final order of removal.” She said the Supreme Court and Congress have “recognized the propriety of administrative warrants in cases of immigration enforcement,” without elaborating. McLaughlin did not respond to questions about how often ICE has entered homes since the memo was issued using only an administrative warrant.

Lindsay Nash, a law professor at Yeshiva University’s Cardozo School of Law, said the memo “flies in the face” of Fourth Amendment protections and what ICE has historically said are its authorities. “There’s an enormous potential for overreach, for mistakes and we’ve seen that those can happen with very, very serious consequences,” Nash said.

The shift is likely to face legal challenges from advocacy groups and immigrant-friendly state and local governments that have spent years successfully urging people not to open their doors without a judicial warrant. The policy also reflects the broader scope of the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement campaign, which has already reshaped enforcement tactics in cities nationwide and prompted responses from state officials and courts questioning the constitutional basis of intensified operations.