Employers may encounter Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents at their workplaces with little or no notice during enforcement actions such as raids, sweeps, or inspections, according to a May 28 announcement. The rights and obligations of employers depend on the type of legal documentation presented by ICE agents: a judicial warrant, an administrative subpoena, or no documentation at all.
A judicial warrant is an order signed by a judge or magistrate and typically references either a U.S. District Court or a state court. Judicial warrants are valid only for specific dates, times, places, and purposes such as arrest, search, or seizure. When ICE presents a valid judicial warrant, “employers do not have discretion to refuse entry into the non-public areas listed in the warrant.” Employers are responsible for verifying that the warrant is court-issued and signed by a judge, reviewing its scope carefully, and ensuring that agents do not exceed what is authorized.
An administrative subpoena differs from a judicial warrant in that it is issued by an agency like ICE or the Department of Homeland Security rather than by a judge. Administrative subpoenas are commonly used in I-9 sweeps and other compliance investigations to seek records instead of physical entry. While there are legal obligations to respond to these subpoenas, they “do not authorize entry into non-public areas of a workplace” without employer consent.
If ICE agents arrive without any legal documentation but request to speak with someone or seek consent to enter—an action known as “knock and talk”—they may enter public areas during operating hours but cannot access non-public spaces without permission.
The main takeaway emphasized is that “the label used to describe an enforcement action matters far less than the documentation the ICE agents present.” Understanding these distinctions helps employers prepare appropriate responses when faced with unexpected site visits.
