Judge Holds That ICE Workplace Warrants Must Comply With The Fourth Amendment

• Published date: 02 July 2025
• Subject Matter: Immigration, Criminal Law, General Immigration, Crime
• Law Firm: Steptoe LLP
• Author: Mr David Isaak, Lena Silva and Mahogane Reed

Given the Trump administration's continued emphasis on immigration enforcement, it is critical that employers understand their rights during an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) enforcement action. In a recent opinion, United States Magistrate Judge Andrew Edison in the Southern District of Texas provides an important limitation on ICE's worksite enforcement powers, as it requires government agents to obtain a judicial warrant to search a business's private areas for suspected undocumented immigrants. For a more detailed discussion about federal immigration policy's implications for employers, see our prior client alert.

A Recent Check on ICE's Enforcement Powers

On May 27, 2025, Magistrate Judge Andrew Edison of the US District Court in the Southern District of Texas, Galveston Division denied the government's application for an administrative inspection warrant.¹ The government sought this administrative inspection warrant to investigate a local business suspected of employing undocumented immigrants without work authorization.² The government's application characterized the search as "civil." It sought a non-particularized general administrative warrant that would have allowed US ICE agents to search "any locked rooms on the premises in order to locate aliens."³ However, the court concluded that because the search was insufficiently tailored and inherently criminal, given the potential penalties the business owners faced, a particularized, criminal warrant supported by probable cause was required.⁴

Rather than ask Judge Edison to reconsider, the government submitted a nearly identical warrant application to US District Judge Jeffrey Brown.⁵ The case was again brought before Judge Edison, who rejected it a second time.

A brief history of administrative "Blackie's" warrants

The Fourth Amendment guarantees that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause," and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(d)(1) requires "probable cause to search for and seize a person." But, the US Supreme Court's decision in Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc. created an exception for administrative search warrants by federal regulatory agencies like those carried out under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). These administrative warrants are permitted where no criminal penalties can result.⁶ In the 1980s, three appellate courts arguably extended Marshall to ICE warrants, which are commonly referred to as "Blackie's warrants, after the DC Circuits 1981 decision in Blackie's House of Beef, Inc. v. Castillo."⁷ In Blackie's, the DC Circuit reasoned that the government's warrant application "was not analogous to a criminal investigation" because no criminal sanctions could be imposed on employers for violating the immigration laws.⁸ Furthermore, no seizure took place where ICE agents questioned individuals outside of the factory near exits⁹, and thus, probable cause was not required to sustain an investigatory warrant.¹⁰

Judge Edison distinguishes the warrant...