FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 29 June 2026

MEDIA CONTACTS: 

Raya Steier, c: 530-723-2426, rsteier@lccrsf.org

Donna De La Cruz, c: (202) 530-8714, ddelacruz@ilrc.org

***PRESS RELEASE***

San Francisco– Three leading legal advocacy organizations today filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today, arguing that the U.S. Constitution prohibits Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from using self-issued administrative “warrants” to enter homes, including the area immediately surrounding the home (known as the “curtilage”). The brief supports the Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice (ICIJ) and Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA) in an appeal arising from a case filed in 2020 that blocked an ICE policy authorizing officers to enter the curtilage to conduct arrest operations without a judicial warrant.

The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area (LCCRSF), the National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC), and the Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC) jointly submitted the brief. It argues that what ICE labels an administrative “warrant” is mere paperwork issued by agency officers, not a genuine warrant from a neutral judge, and therefore it cannot authorize intrusion into constitutionally protected areas of a home.

“Under the Fourth Amendment, your home is your castle, and the government cannot enter it based on a piece of paper that a police officer issued to another police officer,” the amicus brief states. “The warrant requirement exists to ensure that a detached and neutral decisionmaker determines there is probable cause for a search or seizure. ICE administrative warrants are issued by executive-branch supervisory officers who are inherently non-neutral.”

The brief also details federal court findings across the country documenting ICE’s failure to comply with even basic safeguards. Courts have repeatedly found administrative warrants were unsigned, issued by unauthorized officers, created after arrests had already occurred, or lacked any individualized showing of probable cause.

ICE long acknowledged that administrative warrants did not authorize entry into the protected areas of a home. Its Fugitive Operations Handbook expressly stated that neither a Warrant for Arrest of Alien (Form I-200) nor a Warrant of Removal (Form I-205) “authorizes officers to enter the target’s residence or anywhere else where the target has a reasonable expectation of privacy.” That guidance recognizes that administrative warrants did not authorize entry into constitutionally protected spaces. But in May 2025, the agency secretly implemented a policy, later revealed by a whistleblower, instructing officers that administrative warrants authorize them not only to approach homes for the purpose of arrest, but also to forcibly enter those homes. While the agency professes to have since paused its May 2025 policy, it insists on its power to restart it.

The amicus brief argues that the Constitution does not permit vesting ICE with the authority it claims. The brief argues that if the Ninth Circuit reaches the issue, the court should firmly reject ICE’s dangerous assertion of unchecked executive authority and affirm that the right to be secure in one’s home remains the “very core” of the Fourth Amendment that cannot be overridden with administrative paperwork.

View the amicus brief here. 

Amici Quotes:

“For 250 years, the Constitution has prohibited government agents from forcing their way into a person’s home without a judicial warrant. ICE now defies that settled rule pursuant to a secret memo the public didn’t even know existed until a whistleblower came forward. All people, including immigrants, are protected by the Fourth Amendment. We must not stand for what happened in Minneapolis–masked ICE agents breaking down a family’s door without a constitutionally valid warrant–ever happening again.” – Jacob Gonzalez, Staff Attorney, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area (LCCRSF)

“Our experience during Operation Midway Blitz has taught us that ICE does not take any of the safeguards under the Fourth Amendment seriously. It is critical that the courts remain resolute that fundamental Fourth Amendment protections, including being safe in one’s home, apply equally to citizens and noncitizens alike.” – Mark Fleming, Associate Director of Litigation, National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC)

“ICE has been a rogue agency that ignores legal guidance while it carries out cruel and racist policies. The law is clear: a warrant signed by a judge is required to enter someone’s home, including the curtilage of the home when there is no consent. ICE cannot ‘authorize’ illegal and unconstitutional behavior by writing their own warrant. ICE must discontinue and retract any policy that says otherwise. Allowing ICE any authority to enter a place where privacy is expected and constitutionally protected without a warrant goes against sound legal precedence.” – Miosotti Tenecora, Staff Attorney, Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC)

###