Скачать или смотреть ICE Instructs Agents to Enter Homes Illegally Without a Warrant

*Trump Administration ICE Memo and the Constitution*

A recently disclosed internal memo from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has triggered national alarm by instructing federal immigration officers they may forcibly enter private homes without a judicial warrant in certain deportation cases. According to reporting based on whistleblower disclosures and the document itself, the memo tells officers they can rely on an administrative warrant — a form signed by agency personnel rather than an independent judge — to enter a residence to detain someone with a “final order of removal.” ([AP News][1])

Under longstanding Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, only warrants issued by a neutral magistrate — typically a judge — based on probable cause authorize law enforcement to enter and search private homes. The Constitution says “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and **no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched**.” Legal experts generally agree that administrative warrants do not satisfy that constitutional standard and cannot, on their own, justify non-consensual entry into a private residence. ([PBS][2])

Civil liberties advocates and lawmakers have characterized the ICE memo as a blatant encroachment on constitutional rights. Senator Richard Blumenthal, among others, has demanded answers from senior Department of Homeland Security and ICE officials, calling the guidance “unconstitutional and cruel.” ([WebProNews][3])

The disclosure of this guidance has come as the Trump administration escalates its immigration enforcement efforts nationwide. Critics argue the timing — amidst heightened tensions and controversial operations — underscores a broader pattern of expansionist executive authority at the expense of civil liberties. ([Vox][4])

*Killing of Renée Nicole Good and Immunity Debate*

Adding to the controversy is the recent fatal shooting of 37-year-old Renée Nicole Good by an ICE agent in Minneapolis. Good’s death during a federal immigration operation sparked outrage, protests, and legal scrutiny. The Hennepin County Medical Examiner has formally ruled her death a homicide from multiple gunshot wounds inflicted by a federal officer. ([People.com][5])

Vice President J.D. Vance publicly defended the ICE agent involved, asserting at a press briefing that federal officers have “absolute immunity” when performing their duties. Legal experts and state officials have disputed this interpretation, noting that while federal agents have certain legal protections, absolute immunity is not the law and does not shield actions outside lawful authority. ([Ohio Capital Journal][6])

Critics see Vance’s remarks — coming so soon after the shooting — as signaling a dangerous shift: federal agents shielded from accountability, even in cases involving lethal force. Others have compared that level of unchecked power to historically authoritarian forces, drawing parallels to regimes where executives and enforcement arms acted outside constitutional or judicial restraint.

*Fourth Amendment and the Rule of Law*

The Fourth Amendment remains a cornerstone of American liberty, protecting citizens and residents from unreasonable government intrusion. It was crafted to prevent the very kind of arbitrary home invasions the ICE memo appears to endorse. Judicial oversight — through independent magistrates — is the safeguard intended to ensure that law enforcement actions are justified, measured, and respectful of individual rights. ([PBS][2])

Legal precedent has repeatedly affirmed that warrantless entries are unconstitutional absent clear exigent circumstances or voluntary consent. A recent federal court decision in Minnesota echoed this principle, ruling that ICE’s warrantless home entry violated the Constitution and ordering the release of an immigrant detained under such procedures. ([WIRED][7])

*Conclusion*

The confluence of the ICE directive and the high-profile death of Renée Good underscores a broader national debate: whether enforcement of immigration laws should come at the cost of foundational constitutional protections. With bipartisan concern growing in Congress and the courts questioning internal agency directives, this issue is likely to become a central battleground over the limits of executive power, the sanctity of personal privacy, and the enduring promise of the Fourth Amendment to protect all people in the United States — regardless of immigration status.