What Democrats Aren’t Saying About Their Judicial Warrant Demands For ICE

Democrats are demanding federal agents obtain judicial warrants before arresting illegals on private property, a move experts liken to a Trojan horse that would irreversibly weaken American immigration enforcement for years to come.

Judicial warrants have become a flashpoint in immigration enforcement, with sanctuary jurisdictions increasingly claiming that administrative warrants are not enough and a judge’s signature should be a prerequisite to any type of cooperation. Capitol Hill Democrats have seized on the issue, threatening to block funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) if judicial warrants — along with body cameras and uniform requirements — aren’t mandated for personnel on the ground.

“Requiring a judicial warrant for every ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] arrest would severely weaken the agency’s ability to enforce the law, and it would overwhelm the courts, which is likely what anti-ICE advocates in Congress are attempting to accomplish,” Tony Pham, who previously served as acting ICE director during the final months of the first Trump administration, told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The chances of Republicans adopting Democrat demands to curtail Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) are basically nil, a Republican staffer involved in the negotiations told the DCNF, describing the demands as non-starters.

‘It’s Impossible’

The demand for judicial warrants among the left reached a fever pitch after the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti amid anti-ICE protests in January. The incidents sparked Democrats like Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz to equate immigration enforcement to Nazism and prompted party members in Washington, D.C., to threaten a DHS shutdown unless a list of reforms are met.

“The left emphasizes that immigration enforcement is a civil process, and yet they are expecting to use instruments of the criminal justice system — judicial warrants — to confuse and gridlock the execution of justice at DHS,” Pham, now a senior fellow on immigration policy at the America First Policy Institute, told the DCNF. “The insistence on judicial warrants is not about legal necessity or public safety, but is a political maneuver designed to obstruct enforcement while creating the appearance of compliance.”

Other former top enforcers of immigration law described demands for judicial warrants as subterfuge from those who simply wish to stymie ICE’s core mission.

“The anti-borders contingent is insisting ICE get judicial warrants exactly because they know it’s impossible for ICE to do so,” Matt O’Brien, deputy executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a group that advocates for tougher immigration enforcement, told the DCNF.

O’Brien — a former assistant chief counsel for ICE who also previously served as an immigration judge — described demands for judicial warrants as a red herring, given that federal courts don’t currently have authority to issue a judicial warrant for a civil immigration violation. As it stands now, ICE can only muster a judicial arrest warrant for criminal suspects the agency is seeking to detain.

Federal immigration authorities have long used administrative warrants — which are warrants issued internally by an authorized immigration officer — to arrest foreign nationals living unlawfully in the country. A judicial warrant, on the other hand, is a court order signed by a judge or magistrate.

A key difference is that judicial warrants are issued based on probable cause that a crime has been committed, whereas immigration violations are considered a civil offense. Former federal immigration officials that spoke to the DCNF argued that requiring a judicial warrant for every arrest would overwhelm the court system and render ICE useless.

The debate over judicial warrants has already raged for years regarding requests known as immigration detainers.

A local sheriff’s office, for example, may pick up an illegal migrant for driving under the influence and temporarily place them in their county jail. Through a shared national database, ICE becomes aware of the arrest and lodges a detainer request with the sheriff’s office, asking to hold the individual long enough for a deportation officer to arrive and assume custody.

ICE lodged 149,764 immigration detainers throughout fiscal year 2024, according to the latest available ICE data. The number was a modest uptick from the 125,358 detainers issued during fiscal year 2023 as the Biden administration, under increasing pressure to get a grip on the unprecedented illegal immigration crisis, began addressing the issue more seriously.

However, a common demand from sanctuary states and localities is that these detainer requests be accompanied by a judicial warrant, sparking fights in California and other sanctuary havens.

‘An Unworkable Proposal’

DHS revealed in February that 4,561 criminal illegal migrants previously held in California law enforcement custody had been released, in spite of ICE detainers, since Trump re-entered office. Another 33,000 criminal illegal migrants are currently detained in the state and subject to these ICE requests.

“No community serious about keeping its residents safe will tolerate a clear aberration of the law,” ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons stated in a February letter to California Attorney Rob Bonta, pointing to court precedent that determined administrative warrants are already legally enforceable. “ICE and the American people once again demand California honor ICE detainers to take the worst of the worst off the streets and make America safe again.”

The Boston Police Department did not honor a single ICE detainer request throughout 2025, according to a January letter submitted by Police Commissioner Michael Cox. Citing the city’s sanctuary Trust Act, the commissioner said his police department cannot detain a foreign national after they’re eligible for release unless ICE has a criminal warrant.

Doubling down on this sanctuary policy, Democrat Mayor Michelle Wu in February signed an executive order prohibiting ICE from using city property, such as buildings, parks or parking lots. In the order, Wu declared that federal immigration agents must have a “valid court order or judicial warrant” in order to utilize Boston property.

Following intense clashes between federal agents and anti-ICE protesters, Minnesota Democrat Attorney General Keith Ellison also declared earlier in February that immigration detainers would not be honored without a judicial warrant. The newly-minted Democrat governor of Virginia unveiled similar restrictions in her latest anti-ICE executive order.

ICE has recently conducted heightened operations in other cities, such as Memphis, where local authorities are required to be more cooperative, resulting in little to no issues similar to Minneapolis or Los Angeles. Texas and Florida, two deep red states that have official policies requiring ICE cooperation, lead the nation in immigration arrests.

In the wake of Pretti’s and Good’s deaths, congressional Democrats are now demanding judicial warrants play a larger role in immigration enforcement — or else allow DHS to lose funding altogether.

Number one in a 10-point list of demands by Democrats for DHS funding is that federal immigration agents not be allowed to enter private property without a judicial warrant. Democrat leadership is also demanding an improvement for “warrant procedures and standards.” What these restrictions specifically entail are not yet fully understood, with neither Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer nor House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries responding to requests for clarification.

“Adding a whole new layer of judicial warrant requirements is an unworkable proposal,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said during a press conference earlier in February. “And I think the people who are making that suggestion understand that.”