Immigration warrants generally do not allow forced entry into private homes

Administrative immigration warrants typically authorize the arrest of a named individual but do not permit forced entry into private homes; a recent Minneapolis case drew attention after documents showed agents reportedly had only an administrative warrant.

Federal immigration arrests are most often authorized by administrative warrants issued within an agency rather than by judicial warrants signed by a judge. Administrative warrants generally allow officers to arrest a specified person but do not authorize forcible entry into private homes or businesses. Judicial warrants signed by a magistrate or judge do permit entry to make an arrest. A recent Minneapolis arrest, where documents showed an administrative warrant was used, has focused public attention on that legal difference. Key facts: - Most arrests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection are carried out under administrative warrants that authorize detention of a named individual but typically do not allow forced entry into private property. - Judicial or criminal warrants issued and signed by a judge permit entry into a home or business to effect an arrest without the property owner’s consent. - Documents reviewed in a recent Minneapolis case indicated agents had an administrative warrant; DHS officials described the arrest as part of enforcement targeting people with criminal histories. - Legal experts note limited exceptions to the no-entry rule (for example, imminent danger or active pursuit) and raise questions about accountability and limited remedies in immigration proceedings. Summary: The distinction between administrative and judicial warrants is central to debate over when federal immigration agents may enter private property. The Minneapolis incident has highlighted those legal limits and questions about oversight; next legal or procedural steps were not specified and are undetermined at this time.