Six Minnesota residents filed a federal lawsuit Thursday against the Department of Homeland Security, challenging what they claim is a policy that authorized Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to forcibly enter and search homes without judicial warrants.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, argues that DHS has abandoned its long-standing practice of obtaining judicial warrants before home entries. The plaintiffs claim this shift allows agents to use administrative forms instead of court-issued warrants for home raids.
Lead plaintiff Teyana Gibson Brown described what she characterized as a traumatic experience: “Masked and heavily armed ICE agents used a battering ram to break into my home, point guns at my family, arrest my husband, and put all of our lives in danger, including my 9-year-old daughter. No person or family in the United States should have to go through what we experienced.”
According to the lawsuit, ICE agents have been authorized to enter homes using administrative warrants of removal, which can be issued by DHS officials after an immigrant receives a final order of removal. Unlike judicial warrants, these administrative forms do not require review by a court or any official outside of DHS before issuance.
The policy change was reportedly implemented through internal agency guidance rather than public rulemaking. The lawsuit alleges this procedural approach violated federal requirements for public notice and comment on substantive policy changes.
The Gibson Browns’ case stems from a January 11 raid when ICE agents broke down their front door while their school-age daughter and niece were home. Garrison Gibson Brown, a Liberian national who had been under ICE supervision since 2021, was arrested despite regularly checking in with authorities as required. Teyana Brown captured portions of the raid on video, repeatedly asking agents to show a warrant.
Court documents indicate a federal judge later ordered Garrison Gibson Brown’s release from detention, finding constitutional concerns with the arrest. The judge’s ruling cited Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Another plaintiff, Jeyli Salguero, described how armed agents broke down her family’s Oakdale home door in January, detaining her father and sister. “They grabbed my sister from the couch,” Salguero said according to the lawsuit. “I wasn’t able to say bye to my sister.”
The lawsuit contends that administrative warrants have historically provided ICE only with authority to arrest someone during public encounters, not to enter private homes. The plaintiffs argue this represents a significant expansion of how these administrative tools are being used.
Historical Context and Constitutional Framework
The policy represents what civil liberties advocates describe as a departure from previous ICE practices. Historically, ICE training emphasized obtaining judicial warrants before forcibly entering homes to avoid Fourth Amendment violations.
The Supreme Court has established that “physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed.” The Court has ruled that to enter a home to conduct an arrest, the government generally must have a judicial arrest warrant or qualify for narrow exceptions to the warrant requirement.
Ben Casper, an ACLU of Minnesota staff attorney representing the plaintiffs, emphasized the broader constitutional implications: “This is not just an immigration case. This is a case about the right of all people in the United States, including U.S. citizens, to privacy and security in their own home.”
Kristy Parker, a lawyer with Protect Democracy, one of the organizations that filed the lawsuit, explained the constitutional framework: “The Constitution creates a system where we don’t give law enforcement officers unbridled power to seize people on the street or go in their houses, regardless of their badge.”
The lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent future warrantless home entries and challenges what the plaintiffs characterize as a systematic policy change implemented without proper legal authority.
Broader Enforcement Context
The legal challenge comes amid intensified immigration enforcement efforts under the current administration. Immigration advocates have reported increased ICE activity in residential areas, raising questions about the scope of agency authority in home settings.
The case highlights ongoing tensions between immigration enforcement priorities and Fourth Amendment protections that apply to all residents regardless of immigration status. Legal experts note that constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures extend to everyone within U.S. borders.
The plaintiffs are seeking to represent a broader class of individuals potentially affected by the alleged policy change. The lawsuit requests that courts declare the practice unconstitutional and enjoin its continued use.
The Department of Homeland Security has not yet filed a formal response to the lawsuit. The case is expected to raise fundamental questions about the scope of administrative warrant authority and the constitutional limits on immigration enforcement in residential settings.
The litigation represents part of broader legal challenges to current immigration enforcement practices, with civil liberties groups arguing that constitutional protections must be maintained even during periods of heightened enforcement activity.