A 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 decision follows a lawsuit that challenged ICE’s operations in the Twin Cities and highlighted an internal directive that would allow agents to use an administrative warrant instead of a judge-signed one.
At a Glance
- ICE agents entered a Minnesota home on January 11 without a judge-signed warrant.
- US District Court judge Jeffrey Bryan found the entry unconstitutional.
- The man was re-arrested the day after the court order, showing ICE’s continued detention power.
- Why it matters: The ruling confirms that ICE cannot bypass the Fourth Amendment with administrative warrants.
The judge’s ruling was issued in response to a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed on January 17. The petition was brought by Garrison Gibson, a Liberian national who has lived in Minnesota for years under an ICE order of supervision. The court held that the agents’ entry violated the Constitution when they entered the residence without consent and without a judge-signed warrant.
ICE’s internal guidance, which the judge did not evaluate, claims that agents are allowed to enter homes using an administrative warrant. The guidance was cited in a complaint filed by Whistleblower Aid, a nonprofit legal group representing whistleblowers from the public and private sector. The complaint stated that ICE leadership has privately told officers that an administrative warrant is sufficient for home arrests.
The Home Entry
Gibson’s sworn declaration details how the 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.
When the agents returned, they deployed pepper spray toward neighbors who had gathered outside and used a battering ram to force the door open. Gibson’s wife was filming at the time and warned that children were inside. The agents held rifles in their doorway and one agent repeatedly claimed, “We’re getting the papers,” in response to her demand to see the warrant.
Only after Gibson was handcuffed did the agents show his wife an administrative warrant. He says the agents had no warrant in hand and acted as if they were entering a war zone. The declaration was filed as part of a January 12 Minnesota lawsuit against Homeland Security secretary Kristi Noem.
The lawsuit challenges federal immigration enforcement operations in the Twin Cities and characterizes them as an unconstitutional “invasion” by ICE and other agents that has roiled Minneapolis and Saint Paul. State officials have described the operations as a violation of residents’ rights.
The Aftermath
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. His attorney, Marc Prokosch, 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. However, it 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, cited by ICE in his removal order, was reportedly later dismissed by the courts.
Legal Context
The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. A judicial warrant is typically required for a home entry, unless an exception applies. ICE’s internal guidance suggests that an administrative warrant can substitute for a judge-signed one, but the judge’s ruling indicates that such guidance does not override constitutional requirements.
The lawsuit filed on January 12 was part of a broader challenge to ICE’s enforcement tactics in the Twin Cities. The complaint alleges that ICE’s operations constitute an unconstitutional invasion of privacy and civil rights. The judge’s decision supports the plaintiffs’ claim that ICE’s conduct violated the Constitution.
Key Takeaways
- ICE agents entered a Minnesota home without a judge-signed warrant, violating the Fourth Amendment.
- The judge’s ruling confirms that administrative warrants do not replace judicial warrants for home entries.
- The re-arrest after the court order shows that ICE can still detain individuals under civil detention authority.
- The case highlights the tension between ICE’s internal directives and constitutional protections.
- The lawsuit and court decision may influence future ICE operations in the United States.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| January 11 | ICE agents enter Gibson’s home without a judicial warrant |
| January 12 | Gibson files lawsuit against Homeland Security secretary Kristi Noem |
| January 17 | Petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed |
| January 18 | Judge orders Gibson’s immediate release |
| January 19 | Gibson re-arrested during routine immigration check-in |
The case illustrates the limits of ICE’s enforcement powers and the role of the judiciary in safeguarding constitutional rights. The judge’s ruling may serve as a precedent for future challenges to ICE’s use of administrative warrants in domestic operations.
Final Thoughts
The decision underscores the importance of judicial oversight in immigration enforcement. It also raises questions about the scope of ICE’s internal guidance and its compatibility with constitutional law. As ICE continues to operate in the United States, this case may influence how the agency conducts home entries and other enforcement actions.
