An administrative immigration warrant is an internal executive-branch document authorizing immigration officers to arrest or detain a named noncitizen under immigration law; it is issued by agency officials (e.g., ICE officers or agency directors), not by a judge. Administrative warrants typically authorize arrest/detention but lack the judicial signature and scope of a court search warrant.
The Fourth Amendment protects “people,” so noncitizens physically present in the United States (including undocumented immigrants) generally have Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures; the Supreme Court has limited application in some contexts (notably persons outside the U.S.), but inside the U.S. constitutional reasonableness rules apply to noncitizens as they do to citizens.
A "final order of removal" is a binding immigration order requiring a noncitizen to be removed from the United States. It becomes final when an immigration judge issues a removal order and the order is no longer administratively reviewable (the BIA denies or dismisses an appeal or the appeal period is exhausted), or when the BIA issues the order on appeal; once final, ICE generally may carry out removal.
Administrative warrants differ from judicial (court) warrants in origin, review, and function: administrative warrants are issued by agency officials for enforcement (arrest/administrative detention) and do not carry the judicial finding of probable cause or a judge’s signature; judicial warrants are issued by a neutral magistrate or judge after a showing of probable cause and can authorize nonconsensual entry and searches under the Fourth Amendment.
The Eighth U.S. Circuit (en banc in United States v. Lucas, 2007) held that a statutorily authorized administrative “retake”/arrest warrant issued by a corrections director to recapture an escapee satisfied Fourth Amendment reasonableness for arrest in a residence—reasoning that administrative warrants are governed by a different, administrative “reasonableness” standard and need not be issued by a neutral judicial magistrate in that context.
James Percival is the General Counsel of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The DHS General Counsel advises the Secretary and the department on legal matters, interprets federal law for DHS components, issues legal opinions, and oversees department-wide legal policy and litigation strategy.
In the op‑ed, DHS uses the term “deep‑state” as a political shorthand alleging that some career officials or prior internal policies (not elected leadership) had restricted ICE enforcement practices; the term is rhetorical and not a legal category—DHS did not identify specific individuals in the piece.
According to Percival’s op‑ed and DHS statements, beginning January 2025 Secretary Kristi Noem directed DHS to realign ICE policy to permit use of administrative warrants (including entry to residences to arrest noncitizens with final removal orders) consistent with DHS legal advice; DHS says leadership authorized restoring or clarifying agency use of administrative warrants for home arrests when a final order of removal exists.