A federal court in Minnesota recently ruled against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), stating that their agents violated the Fourth Amendment by entering a man’s home without a judicial warrant. The ruling is particularly significant as it contradicts an internal ICE memo asserting that agents could rely on administrative warrants to conduct home arrests.
Judge Jeffrey Bryan delivered this ruling in response to a petition from Garrison Gibson, a Liberian national living under an order of supervision from ICE. Gibson described a harrowing experience on January 11, when agents stormed his home in the early morning while his family was asleep. After initially refusing to open the door, he was confronted by a larger group of agents who then forcibly entered using a battering ram while utilizing pepper spray on neighbors outside.
The court did not directly address the legality of the contentious ICE directive that led to this situation, but it clearly stated that the agents’ actions constituted a violation of the Constitution since they entered without consent or proper judicial authorization. An administrative warrant, which is typically signed only by an ICE supervisor, does not grant the same authority as a judge-signed warrant and does not permit forcible entry into a residence.
The ruling comes amidst heightened scrutiny of ICE practices, particularly concerning an internal document known as Form I-205, which has been interpreted to allow non-consensual home entries based on administrative warrants. Civil liberties advocates have raised alarms over this interpretation, arguing that it undermines the Fourth Amendment by erasing the judicial oversight that is meant to prevent government overreach into private homes.
Gibson’s experience escalated when, despite the court’s ruling, ICE re-arrested him during a routine check-in, demonstrating the agency’s persistent reach despite legal challenges. His history includes a single felony conviction from 2008, which was later dismissed. The re-arrest does not nullify the court’s order regarding his initial unlawful entry, but it highlights the ongoing complexities surrounding ICE’s enforcement powers.
ICE has not provided substantial public comment regarding the ruling, and the backlash against their internal policies and practices continues to grow, signaling a critical moment in the ongoing debate over immigration enforcement and civil rights.
