US Judge Rules ICE Raids Require Judicial Warrants, Contradicting Secret ICE Memo | WIREDSkip to main contentMenuSECURITYPOLITICSTHE BIG STORYBUSINESSSCIENCECULTUREREVIEWSMenuAccountAccountNewslettersSecurityPoliticsThe Big StoryBusinessScienceCultureReviewsChevronMoreExpandThe Big InterviewMagazineEventsWIRED InsiderWIRED ConsultingNewslettersPodcastsVideoMerchSearchSearchSign InSign InDell Cameron Matt GilesSecurityJan 23, 2026 5:24 PMUS Judge Rules ICE Raids Require Judicial Warrants, Contradicting Secret ICE MemoThe ruling in federal court in Minnesota lands as Immigration and Customs Enforcement faces scrutiny over an internal memo claiming judge-signed warrants aren’t needed to enter homes without consent.Photograph: Genaro Molina/Getty ImagesSave StorySave this storySave StorySave this storyA federal judge in Minnesota ruled last Saturday that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents violated the Fourth Amendment after they forcibly entered a Minnesota man’s home without a judicial warrant. The conduct of the agents closely mirrors a previously undisclosed ICE directive that claims agents are permitted to enter people’s homes using an administrative warrant, rather than a warrant signed by a judge.The ruling, issued by US District Court judge Jeffrey Bryan in response to a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on January 17, did not assess the legality of ICE’s internal guidance itself. But it squarely holds that federal agents violated the United States Constitution when they entered a residence without consent and without a judge-signed warrant—the same conditions ICE leadership has privately told officers is sufficient for home arrests, according to a complaint filed by Whistleblower Aid, a nonprofit legal group representing whistleblowers from the public and private sector.In a sworn declaration, Garrison Gibson, a Liberian national who has lived in Minnesota for years under an ICE order of supervision, says agents arrived at his home in the early morning on January 11 while his family slept inside. He says he refused to open the door and repeatedly demanded to see a judicial warrant. According to the declaration, the agents initially left, then returned with a larger group, deployed pepper spray toward neighbors who had gathered outside, and used a battering ram to force the door open.The declaration was filed as part of a January 12 Minnesota lawsuit against Homeland Security secretary Kristi Noem challenging federal immigration enforcement operations in the Twin Cities, which state officials characterize as an unconstitutional “invasion” by ICE and other agents that has roiled Minneapolis and Saint Paul.Federal officials did not contest Gibson’s habeas petition.Gibson, who reportedly fled the Liberian civil war as a child, says agents entered his home without showing a warrant. His wife, who was filming at the time, warned that children were inside, he says, and that agents holding rifles stood in their doorway. “One agent repeatedly claimed ‘We’re getting the papers’ in response to her demand to see the warrant,” he says. “But without showing a warrant, and apparently without having one, five to six agents moved in as if they were entering a war zone.”Only after he was handcuffed, Gibson says, did the agents show his wife an administrative warrant.One day after the judge ordered Gibson’s immediate release, ICE agents took him back into custody when he appeared for a routine immigration check-in at a Minnesota immigration office, according to his attorney, Marc Prokosch, who said Gibson arrived believing the court order had resolved the matter.“We were there for a check-in, and the original officer said, ‘This looks good, I'll be right back,’” Prokosch told the Associated Press. “And then there was a lot of chaos, and about five officers came out and then they said, ‘We're going to be taking him back into custody.’ I was like, ‘Really, you want to do this again?’”The re-arrest did not reverse the court’s finding that ICE violated the Fourth Amendment during the warrantless home entry, but underscores how the agency retains civil detention authority even if a judge rules that a specific arrest was unconstitutional.Court records reviewed by the Associated Press show Gibson’s criminal history consists of a single felony conviction from 2008, along with minor traffic violations and low-level arrests. The 2008 conviction, which was cited by ICE in his removal order, was reportedly later dismissed by the courts.Got a Tip?Are you a current or former government employee who wants to talk about US immigration enforcement? We'd like to hear from you. Using a nonwork phone or computer, contact the reporter securely on Signal at dell.3030.Prokosch did not immediately respond to a request for comment.An ICE administrative warrant, which is typically signed by an ICE supervisor—not an independent judge—authorizes the arrest and detention of a noncitizen for immigration purposes. This type of warrant is used to take someone into custody in public, or where consent exists to enter a private dwelling, but it is not a judicial search or arrest warrant and does not authorize nonconsensual entry into a private residence.The ruling comes as new scrutiny focuses on a previously undisclosed ICE legal directive centered on Form I-205, an internal administrative document known as a “Warrant of Removal/Deportation.” According to materials disclosed by Whistleblower Aid, the memo instructs ICE officers that a signed I-205, which is issued by the agency, not a judge, is sufficient authority to enter a person’s home to carry out an arrest, even without the resident’s consent.The guidance was circulated internally and briefed verbally to officers, the whistleblower complaint alleges, and has drawn alarm from civil liberties advocates who argue it conflicts with long-standing Fourth Amendment limits on warrantless home entry.In a recent analysis, Orin Kerr, widely regarded as the nation’s preeminent Fourth Amendment scholar and the author of leading law review articles on search-and-seizure doctrine, wrote that ICE’s position conflicts with long-standing constitutional limits, noting that “the executive branch can’t be in charge of deciding whether to give itself a warrant.”Kerr warned that allowing executive-issued warrants to justify home entry would undermine the judicial check the Fourth Amendment is meant to impose, writing that such warrants lack the “neutral and detached” review required before the government can cross the threshold of a private residence.After his arrest, Gibson says in his declaration that he was taken to a local detention facility where ICE agents posed for photos. “Once there, agents posed with their personal cell phones taking selfies standing on either side of me with their thumbs up,” he says. “I observed them take similar photos with other detainees. This, to me, seemed designed to humiliate the detainees and create ‘trophy’ photos.”The facility, known as the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building, houses ICE components in Minnesota and has become a focal point for protests and community attention amid aggressive federal operations carried out under the banner of immigration enforcement.ICE acknowledged a request for comment but did not provide a substantive response before publication.In a statement Thursday, Homeland Security spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin told reporters that people served with administrative warrants have already received “full due process and a final order of removal,” and claimed the officers issuing the warrants “also have found probable cause.”Judge Bryan’s ruling implicitly rejects that view. Absent pushback from the government, he ordered Gibson’s immediate release, adding that the agents had “forcibly entered [Gibson’s] home without his consent and without a judicial warrant,” concluding bluntly: “This arrest violated the Fourth Amendment.”You Might Also LikeIn your inbox: WIRED's most ambitious, future-defining storiesDoes the “war on protein” exist?Big Story: China’s renewable energy revolution might save the worldThe race to build the DeepSeek of Europe is onWatch our livestream replay: Welcome to the Chinese centuryDell Cameron is an investigative reporter from Texas covering privacy and national security. He's the recipient of multiple Society of Professional Journalists awards and is co-recipient of an Edward R. Murrow Award for Investigative Reporting. Previously, he was a senior reporter at Gizmodo and a staff writer for the Daily ... Read MoreSenior Reporter, National SecurityMatt Giles runs WIRED’s research team and is head of its fact-checking department. Prior to joining WIRED, he oversaw fact-checking operations at Rest of World and Longreads, while also freelance fact-checking everything from podcasts about UFOs and criminal justice reform to books about extremism and the National Women’s Football League. ... Read MoreResearch DirectorTopicsimmigrationImmigration and Customs EnforcementCrimepoliticsPolicyprivacyFourth AmendmentMinnesotaRead MoreTopResume Packages and Free Resume Review: Everything You Need to Get Hired in 2026Discover ways to save at TopResume, including their free review service and 4-week Career Services Platform trial.Paramount+ Coupon Codes and Deals: Free Trial, Student Deals, and Military Discounts This 2026Save on streaming with the latest Paramount+ promo codes and deals, including 50% off subscriptions, free trials, and more.HP Coupon Codes and Deals January 2026Save up to 60%, plus an extra 20% with HP promo codes for laptops, printers, PCs, and more tech.Home Depot Promo Codes: $100 Off in January 2026Save an extra $100 or up to 50% today with the latest Home Depot promo codes for appliances, power tools, and more this January.This Mega Snowstorm Will Be a Test for the US Supply ChainShipping experts say the big winter storm across a wide swath of the country should be business as usual—if their safeguards hold.Clearly Filtered Is on a Sitewide Sale Right NowClearly Filtered water pitchers, bottles, and under-sink filters are 10 to 19 percent off. I tested three filters to see how they performed.Uncanny Valley: Donald Trump’s Davos Drama, AI Midterms, and ChatGPT’s Last ResortOn this episode of Uncanny Valley, our hosts unpack the news from Davos, where Trump and major AI companies shared the stage at the World Economic Forum.US Judge Rules ICE Raids Require Judicial Warrants, Contradicting Secret ICE MemoThe ruling in federal court in Minnesota lands as Immigration and Customs Enforcement faces scrutiny over an internal memo claiming judge-signed warrants aren’t needed to enter homes without consent.TikTok Is Now Collecting Even More Data About Its Users. Here Are the 3 Biggest ChangesAccording to its new privacy policy, TikTok now collects more data on its users, including their precise location, after majority ownership officially switched to a group based in the US.Skip the Shovel: How to Prep for the Biggest Storm of the SeasonBitter cold, power outages, and impassible roads are a terrible cocktail. Here’s how to prep and bunker in for an extreme winter storm.Our Favorite Earbuds for Most People Are Over 25 Percent OffThese excellent earbuds were already a good deal before the discount.CBP Wants AI-Powered ‘Quantum Sensors’ for Finding Fentanyl in CarsUS Customs and Border Protection is paying General Dynamics to create prototype “quantum sensors,” to be used with an AI database to detect fentanyl and other narcotics.WIRED is obsessed with what comes next. Through rigorous investigations and game-changing reporting, we tell stories that don’t just reflect the moment—they help create it. When you look back in 10, 20, even 50 years, WIRED will be the publication that led the story of the present, mapped the people, products, and ideas defining it, and explained how those forces forged the future. WIRED: For Future Reference.SubscribeNewslettersTravelFAQWIRED StaffWIRED EducationEditorial StandardsArchiveRSSSite MapAccessibility HelpReviewsBuying GuidesStreaming GuidesWearablesCouponsGift GuidesAdvertiseContact UsManage AccountJobsPress CenterCondé Nast StoreUser AgreementPrivacy PolicyYour California Privacy Rights© 2026 Condé Nast. All rights reserved. WIRED may earn a portion of sales from products that are purchased through our site as part of our Affiliate Partnerships with retailers. The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Condé Nast. Ad ChoicesSelect international siteUnited StatesLargeChevronItaliaJapónCzech Republic & SlovakiaFacebookXPinterestYouTubeInstagramTiktok

The ruling in federal court in Minnesota represents a significant challenge to Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) operational practices. US District Court Judge Jeffrey Bryan recently determined that ICE agents’ forceful entry into a Minnesota man’s home, mirroring a previously undisclosed internal memo, constituted a Fourth Amendment violation. This memo, according to whistleblower disclosures, suggests that administrative warrants—signed by ICE supervisors rather than judges—are sufficient authorization for home entries, even without the resident’s consent. The judge’s decision did not directly assess the legality of the internal ICE directive itself, however, it firmly established that the agents’ conduct—characterized by the use of pepper spray, a battering ram, and the seizure of a resident’s home—was a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The case centers on Garrison Gibson, a Liberian national under ICE’s supervision, whose home was entered early on January 11th while his family was asleep. Mr. Gibson refused to open the door and demanded a judge-signed warrant, a request that agents initially seemingly acknowledged but then failed to produce. The agents’ actions, as detailed in Mr. Gibson’s declaration, involved deploying pepper spray toward neighbors, forcing entry with a battering ram, and ultimately, securing the residence. This sequence of events highlights the potential clash between agency interpretation and established constitutional safeguards.

The immediate aftermath of the incident saw Mr. Gibson’s immediate release following the court’s order, but was subsequently re-taken into custody by ICE agents. This re-arrest underscores the agency’s ability to retain detention authority even after a court ruling has identified a procedural violation. The incident also reveals a concerning pattern—the agents’ use of photographic evidence, capturing images with ICE agents posing with Gibson and other detainees—raising further questions regarding protocol and civil liberties.

The core of the legal challenge lies in the interpretation of ICE’s internal guidance, specifically the use of administrative warrants. These warrants, typically issued by ICE supervisors, allow for arrests and detentions without judicial oversight. The disclosure of this internal memo, coupled with the events surrounding Gibson's home entry, has intensified scrutiny on ICE’s operational procedures. Orin Kerr, a leading Fourth Amendment scholar, emphasizes the gravity of this situation, arguing that allowing executive-issued warrants to justify home entries would undermine the constitutional checks and balances intended to protect individual privacy.

The case highlights a fundamental tension between the executive branch’s authority to enforce immigration laws and the judiciary’s role in safeguarding fundamental rights. The ruling in Minnesota doesn't necessarily invalidate the use of administrative warrants, but it does compel ICE to operate within the boundaries of the Constitution, and further ensures that judicial oversight remains a critical component of immigration enforcement.