An I‑205 is an ICE “Warrant of Removal/Deportation,” an executive‑branch (administrative) civil warrant signed by an immigration officer to effectuate removal of an alien with a final order of removal. It differs from a judicial (criminal) arrest/search warrant because the probable‑cause determination and issuance occur within the executive branch (ICE/DHS) rather than being signed by a neutral magistrate; judicial warrants are issued by judges and usually require the higher probable‑cause showing and a separate judicial review. (I‑205s are used to arrest/remove aliens after a final removal order.)
The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures of “people” and “effects” in the United States, and courts have long held that non‑citizens physically in the U.S. generally have Fourth Amendment protection; the Supreme Court in Verdugo‑Urquidez (494 U.S. 259 (1990)) limited application to searches by U.S. agents of property owned by nonresident aliens abroad, but domestic non‑citizens remain protected. In immigration arrest contexts, Abel v. United States (362 U.S. 217 (1960)) and later federal decisions recognize that administrative arrest procedures and a reasonableness standard can apply to aliens subject to deportation.
8 C.F.R. §241.2(a)(1) provides that a Form I‑205 (Warrant of Removal) based on a final administrative removal order will be issued by authorized immigration officials (listing officials who may issue it) and generally links issuance to the existence of a final, executable order of removal. In short: an I‑205 is issued after a final removal order under the regulation.
DHS cited Abel v. United States (362 U.S. 217 (1960)), where the Supreme Court said historical practice supported administrative arrest of deportable aliens and applied a reasonableness inquiry rather than treating judicial warrants as the only constitutionally sufficient mechanism. DHS also cited Eighth Circuit precedent (notably United States v. Lucas and related Eighth Circuit decisions) that recognized administrative warrants may be used to enter a residence to capture a fugitive and that the Fourth Amendment standard is reasonableness. Lucas involved an administrative arrest/warrant context and held, under circuit precedent, the entry was evaluated under a reasonableness standard.
DHS cited three polls and gave topline results. Methodology details vary by poll: Cygnal (online/automated panel; sample and field dates not provided in the DHS release — consult Cygnal’s release for full methodology), Harvard/Harris (online/phone mixed‑mode national poll; Harvard/Harris typically posts methodology with sample size and dates on their site), and Harper Polling (likely a national online poll; DHS cited point estimates but did not include sampling details on the DHS page). DHS’s release does not include sample sizes, field dates, margins of error, or weighting; those details must be obtained from each polling firm’s original release to judge whether each poll is nationally representative.
As Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem (per DHS organization and practice) sets department‑wide enforcement priorities and issues policy direction for DHS components (including ICE), directs senior leadership, and oversees implementation of DHS policy. She does not personally supervise day‑to‑day field operations of ICE agents but can change enforcement priorities, issue policy memos, and direct agency leadership to realign operations. Statutory authority for DHS leadership flows from the Homeland Security Act and agency delegations to the Secretary and component heads (ICE reports to the DHS Secretary through DHS leadership).
Oversight and accountability for ICE use of administrative warrants include: (1) internal ICE oversight — ICE Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) and ICE inspections/detention oversight units; (2) DHS‑level oversight — DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) has authority to investigate allegations of misconduct and operations; (3) judicial review — courts hear Fourth Amendment and statutory challenges to ICE practices and can enjoin policies; and (4) administrative process — FOIA requests, congressional oversight, and complaint processes. Complaints about ICE conduct may be filed with ICE‑OPR or referred to DHS OIG for investigation.