Federal Judge Orders ICE to Follow the Law, Contradicts Secret Memo on Home Raids
In a major victory for civil liberties advocates, a federal judge in Minnesota has ruled that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents violated the Fourth Amendment by entering a man's home without consent or a judicial warrant. The decision contradicts a previously undisclosed ICE memo claiming that agents do not need to show a warrant to enter homes.
The ruling came after Whistleblower Aid, a nonprofit legal group representing whistleblowers from the public and private sector, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Garrison Gibson, a Liberian national who has lived in Minnesota for years under an ICE order of supervision. In his sworn declaration, Gibson recounted how ICE agents arrived at his home in January 2026, claiming to have a warrant, but instead deployed pepper spray towards neighbors and used a battering ram to force open the door.
The judge's ruling implies that ICE's internal guidance on Form I-205, an administrative document known as a "Warrant of Removal/Deportation," is at odds with long-standing Fourth Amendment limits on warrantless home entry. This guidance instructs officers that a signed I-205 is sufficient authority to enter a person's home without their consent.
Critics argue that this approach undermines the judicial check the Fourth Amendment is meant to impose, as it allows executive-issued warrants to justify home entry. Orin Kerr, a leading expert on Fourth Amendment doctrine, has warned that such warrants lack the "neutral and detached" review required before the government can cross the threshold of a private residence.
Gibson's case highlights the tension between immigration enforcement policies and constitutional protections. Despite his court-ordered release, Gibson was re-arrested by ICE agents at a Minnesota immigration office, sparking concerns about the agency's adherence to the law.
ICE officials have defended their actions, claiming that people served with administrative warrants have received "full due process and a final order of removal." However, the judge's ruling suggests that this approach may not be consistent with constitutional standards.
In a major victory for civil liberties advocates, a federal judge in Minnesota has ruled that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents violated the Fourth Amendment by entering a man's home without consent or a judicial warrant. The decision contradicts a previously undisclosed ICE memo claiming that agents do not need to show a warrant to enter homes.
The ruling came after Whistleblower Aid, a nonprofit legal group representing whistleblowers from the public and private sector, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Garrison Gibson, a Liberian national who has lived in Minnesota for years under an ICE order of supervision. In his sworn declaration, Gibson recounted how ICE agents arrived at his home in January 2026, claiming to have a warrant, but instead deployed pepper spray towards neighbors and used a battering ram to force open the door.
The judge's ruling implies that ICE's internal guidance on Form I-205, an administrative document known as a "Warrant of Removal/Deportation," is at odds with long-standing Fourth Amendment limits on warrantless home entry. This guidance instructs officers that a signed I-205 is sufficient authority to enter a person's home without their consent.
Critics argue that this approach undermines the judicial check the Fourth Amendment is meant to impose, as it allows executive-issued warrants to justify home entry. Orin Kerr, a leading expert on Fourth Amendment doctrine, has warned that such warrants lack the "neutral and detached" review required before the government can cross the threshold of a private residence.
Gibson's case highlights the tension between immigration enforcement policies and constitutional protections. Despite his court-ordered release, Gibson was re-arrested by ICE agents at a Minnesota immigration office, sparking concerns about the agency's adherence to the law.
ICE officials have defended their actions, claiming that people served with administrative warrants have received "full due process and a final order of removal." However, the judge's ruling suggests that this approach may not be consistent with constitutional standards.
. So basically ICE is saying they can just show up at your house without knocking or anything because some paper says so? That doesn't seem right to me. I mean, we have laws in place for a reason, like to protect our homes and stuff. If someone comes into my home uninvited, I'm gonna freak out 
. 
.
. I'm glad someone is speaking up for him, but it's just weird that ICE would think they can do this without anyone noticing or questioning it.
I feel so bad for Garrison Gibson, he must've been living in constant fear of his home being raided at any moment. The idea that ICE agents could just show up and pepper spray neighbors is just disturbing 
. I mean, we need more transparency and accountability in our gov't, not less.
I think its kinda crazy that ICE had this secret memo saying they didn't need no warrant to enter homes. Like, what kind of police agency thinks it can just do whatever and get away with it? 
The fact that the judge ruled in favor of civil liberties advocates is awesome tho 
. We need to make sure that this right is protected for everyone, regardless of their immigration status.
ICE gotta follow the law, period. This whole thing about 'form I-205' being a get-out-of-jail-free card for them is sketchy at best. You got a guy living his life, minding his biz, and then suddenly ICE shows up with a battering ram like it's some kinda cop show 
... meanwhile, the judge is all like "hey, you can't just break into people's homes willy-nilly" 
where it was all about how much power the President should have to make laws without Congress? 
...I mean, what's the point of even having a rule if you're just gonna ignore it? 
. But I guess this ruling is a step in the right direction, and it'll be interesting to see how ICE adapts from here 
.
. I mean, what's next? A memo saying they can stop and search people on the street without probable cause? 
.
That's not okay. He was just trying to live his life under an order of supervision, and then BAM! They show up uninvited and start causing a scene.
. This decision is a major win for civil liberties advocates, and it's about time someone did 
. The fact that ICE had an internal memo claiming agents didn't need a warrant to enter homes without consent is just wild 
.
. I'm glad Whistleblower Aid stepped up and fought for Garrison Gibson's rights, even when it was tough 
. We need to make sure our government is held accountable for following the law and upholding constitutional protections 
. The whole thing just feels like a big mess 
. And then there are all these concerns about due process... how can people trust that they're getting the full treatment if ICE is just gonna swoop in willy-nilly without a warrant? 
.
. We need to make sure our government is held accountable for its actions, not just when it's convenient, but always 
.
