What to know about where ICE can operate
Part of President Trump's crackdown on immigration includes lifting restrictions on where federal agents can conduct immigration enforcement, sparking some backlash and uncertainty amid a surge in raids across the country.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as ICE, said it arrested more than 1,000 people on Tuesday. In 2024, an average of 312 people were arrested per day.
Hours after Mr. Trump's inauguration, his administration revoked a policy that prohibited arrests by U.S. immigration agents at or near schools, places of worship and other "sensitive locations."
Speaking to "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," Vice President JD Vance said the change in policy empowers "law enforcement to enforce the law everywhere."
Some Catholic leaders have expressed concern about the potential impact in churches, and school officials are issuing guidance on how to handle immigration-related issues at schools. Some local officials have also criticized ICE for how agents are conducting raids.
However, experts say there are still limits on where immigration officials can operate, and constitutional protections remain. Here's what to know.
Where ICE can operate
The Department of Homeland Security has followed a policy since 2011 that restricted ICE enforcement actions, including arrests, interviews, searches and surveillance, at "sensitive" locations such as schools, churches and hospitals.
Under former President Joe Biden, the department issued a policy in 2021 that expanded on the definitions of what is considered "protected areas" for both ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
Anyone, including ICE agents, can enter public areas without permission. Examples of public areas include lobbies, dining areas in restaurants and waiting rooms, according to the National Immigration Law Center, a nonprofit advocacy organization known as NILC.
The NILC said ICE agents cannot enter private areas — such as a home or an employee-only area like a breakroom — without permission or a judicial warrant signed by a judge.
Because ICE officers typically don't have warrants signed by judges, they sometimes wait for unauthorized immigrants to come outside of their homes to arrest them, or convince homeowners to give them entry.
Regardless of being in a public or private space, anyone approached by ICE agents has the right to remain silent.
The reasonable expectation of privacy is protected by the Fourth Amendment and the right to remain silent is protected by the Fifth Amendment in the U.S. Constitution.
"Every person maintains constitutional rights within the United States, regardless of the sensitive locations policy or not," Heidi Altman, NILC's vice president of policy, told CBS News.
However, there are limits on Fourth Amendment protections. A federal regulation allows CBP agents without a warrant to enter and search buses, trains, boats and aircraft within 100 miles of a land or sea border.
The NILC said ICE agents who are in public spaces or are authorized to enter private spaces can make arrests if they have an administrative warrant or probable cause.
An administrative warrant is issued by a federal agency, such as ICE or CBP, and enables an officer to make an arrest or seizure, but it does not authorize a search, according to the NILC.
An administrative warrant can be signed by an immigration judge or immigration officer, whereas a judicial warrant must be issued by a judicial court and signed by a judge or magistrate judge.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
30 minutes ago
- Washington Post
ICE detains Marine Corps veteran's wife who was still breastfeeding their baby
BATON ROUGE, La. — Marine Corps veteran Adrian Clouatre doesn't know how to tell his children where their mother went after U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers detained her last month. When his nearly 2-year-old son Noah asks for his mother before bed, Clouatre just tells him, 'Mama will be back soon.' When his 3-month-old, breastfeeding daughter Lyn is hungry, he gives her a bottle of baby formula instead. He's worried how his newborn will bond with her mother absent skin-to-skin contact.
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Pakistan condemns Trump for bombing Iran a day after recommending him for a Nobel Peace Prize
ISLAMABAD (AP) — Pakistan condemned U.S. President Donald Trump for bombing Iran, less than 24 hours after saying he deserved a Nobel Peace Prize for defusing a recent crisis with India. Relations between the two South Asian countries plummeted after a massacre of tourists in Indian-controlled Kashmir in April. The nuclear-armed rivals stepped closer to war in the weeks that followed, attacking each other until intense diplomatic efforts, led by the U.S., resulted in a truce for which Trump took credit. It was this 'decisive diplomatic intervention and pivotal leadership' that Pakistan praised in an effusive message Saturday night on the X platform when it announced its formal recommendation for him to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. Less than 24 hours later, however, it condemned the U.S. for attacking Iran, saying the strikes 'constituted a serious violation of international law' and the statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, in a phone call Sunday with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, expressed his concern that the bombings had targeted facilities that were under the safeguards of the IAEA. Pakistan has close ties with Iran and supports its attacks on Israel, saying it has the right to self-defense. There was no immediate comment on Monday from Islamabad about the Trump Nobel recommendation, which also followed a high-profile White House lunch meeting between the president and Pakistan's powerful army chief, Asim Munir. Thursday's meeting, which lasted more than two hours, was also attended by the Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Steve Witkoff, the U.S. Special Representative for Middle Eastern Affairs. According to a Pakistani military statement, a detailed exchange of views took place on the 'prevailing tensions between Iran and Israel, with both leaders emphasizing the importance of the resolution of the conflict.' While Pakistan was quick to thank Trump for his intervention in its crisis with India, New Delhi played it down and said there was no need for external mediation on the Kashmir issue. The Himalayan region of Kashmir is divided between Pakistan and India but claimed by both in its entirety. India accuses Pakistan of backing militant groups in the region, which Pakistan denies.
Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
What Does the US Strike on Iran Mean for Israel?
Live on Bloomberg TV CC-Transcript 00:00Walk us through how the Israeli public has responded to the US military intervention over the weekend. Good morning, Joumanna. Yes, well, this was a dramatic weekend, one of historic proportions in Israel as elsewhere in the region and in the world, especially countries that have a stake in this part of the world. And Israelis, I would say this is to judge by everything from television panelists to the people I've shared bomb shelters with during the Iranian retaliatory missile attacks appear to be relieved, jubilant, astonished at the fact that the world's great power, the United States, did intervene finally, and using its firepower for what appears to have been a knockout blow, at least as described by President Trump and by his staff to the Iranian nuclear program. Of course, the question is whether it was a knockout blow. And I think what you're going to see today is the discourse shifting to one of BDA. That's the refrain you'll be hearing a lot of battle damage assessments, whether indeed it was a knockout blow, whether indeed the damage was enough to end any credible work at those sites and effectively allow Israel to pack up and say that the war is over. The main threat, what it's described as the main threat to its existence going back decades has now been dealt with conclusively. I thought it was interesting. The Israeli prime minister gave a televised address yesterday where he said Israel is very close to reaching goals in Iran but will also avoid a war of attrition. How should we be reading those comments, Dan? Well, it's worth keeping in mind that the two countries are separated by something like a thousand miles of territory. I think three international borders, Iran is something like 70 times the size of Israel. There really is an asymmetry here in terms of disposition, geography, military standing. So for all the virtuosity of Israeli forces here, I don't think they could afford to sustain fighting in the long run, something akin to what we've seen in the last 20 months in Gaza, in Lebanon, in Syria, which are neighboring countries or neighboring territories. So the Israelis are looking logistically at this. I think they're also signaling to the American public, those Americans who are wondering whether this is a repeat of 2003 in Iraq, that this was a one time deal for Israel and for the United States, that perhaps the US role has begun and ended with this airstrike and that Israel, the country most involved in this, the U.S. ally, is really also trying to wrap things up as soon as it believes that its goals have been achieved and those goals may be achieved very soon.
