We asked experts whether ICE agents can arrest people without warrants or not. Here's what we learned

On June 17, 2025, New York City Comptroller and Democratic mayoral candidate Brad Lander was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents at a courthouse. Lander was there observing immigration court hearings and volunteering with a group that accompanied immigrants out of the building, a practice volunteers say provides comfort and witnesses in case immigrants are detained by law enforcement.
His arrest happened after he linked arms with an individual named Edgardo whom ICE agents were attempting to detain while the latter attended a hearing. When an agent accused Lander of "obstructing" them, he said, "You don't have the authority to arrest U.S. citizens [...] I'm not obstructing. I'm standing right here in the hallway. I asked to see the judicial warrant."
Lander was released hours later and according to Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, all charges against him were dropped. Federal prosecutors said they were continuing to investigate actions "involving" Lander.
It was not clear at first whether Lander was talking about a judicial warrant for himself prior to this arrest, or for Edgardo. Lander's wife confirmed the judicial warrant he asked for was regarding Edgardo, the individual in court, "not for Brad."
Lenni Benson, professor of immigration and human rights law at New York School of Law, told Snopes over email that ICE's targeting of immigrants attending their court hearings like Edgardo's is "an attempt by the [Department of Homeland Security] to rapidly detain a high number of people, including those who have complied with all requests and have sought asylum."
Many online questioned whether ICE, which focuses on immigration-related crimes, had the authority to arrest people without a warrant, while others wondered whether ICE has the power to arrest U.S. citizens like Lander. Below, we break down the laws governing ICE agents, the warrants they use, their authority when it comes to U.S. citizens and the cases of Lander and Edgardo.
We spoke to a number of immigration lawyers and reached out to ICE and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We also reached out to Lander's office and will update this story accordingly if we hear back.
According to 8 U.S. Code 1357, "Powers of immigration officers and employees," subsection "Powers without warrant," summarized below, immigration agents do not need warrants for the following actions:
To interrogate any alien or person believed to be alien about their right to be or remain in the United States.
To arrest an alien who, in the agent's presence, is apparently entering the United States in violation of laws or regulations, particularly if the agent has reason to believe the alien can escape before a warrant can be obtained.
To board and search for aliens on any vessel in the territorial waters of the United States within "reasonable distance" from any external boundary of the United States, as well as "any railway car, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle, and within a distance of twenty-five miles from any such external boundary to have access to private lands, but not dwellings." This access is for the purpose of patrolling the border.
To arrest people for "felonies which have been committed and which are cognizable under any law of the United States regulating the admission, exclusion, expulsion, or removal of aliens, if he has reason to believe that the person so arrested is guilty of such felony and if there is likelihood of the person escaping before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest."
To make arrests: "A) for any offense against the United States, if the offense is committed in the officer's or employee's presence, or B) for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States, if the officer or employee has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such a felony."
Per the code, immigration officers can arrest anyone without a warrant if officers are "performing duties relating to the enforcement of the immigration laws at the time of the arrest and if there is a likelihood of the person escaping before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest."
Aside from the exceptions outlined above under "Powers without warrant," ICE is required to present one of two warrants while making an arrest or conducting a search: either a judicial warrant to enter private property, or an administrative warrant from the agency authorizing an arrest or seizure.
Although Lander asked to see a judicial warrant for Edgardo, ICE is not required to present a judicial warrant in a public place like a courtroom. According to the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), a judicial warrant can only be issued by a court, must be signed by a state or federal judge, and authorizes "a law enforcement officer to make an arrest, a seizure, or a search of some private area, such as your home."
An administrative warrant (also referred to as an "immigration warrant" or "ICE warrant") can be signed by ICE itself. Per the NILC, an administrative warrant is "issued by a federal agency and may be signed by an 'immigration judge' or an 'immigration officer' (such as an ICE agent). Unlike a judicial warrant, an immigration warrant does not authorize a search or entry into your home or other private areas."
We spoke to a range of immigration experts who noted that while ICE can obtain judicial warrants against both immigrants and U.S. citizens, they hardly ever do so due to the requirement of convincing a federal judge to issue said warrant. Administrative warrants carry less legal weight, as in practice they allow an agency like ICE to give itself permission to carry out an arrest. Further, ICE cannot use administrative warrants to arrest U.S. citizens.
Benson told Snopes that while an administrative warrant should generally not be enforceable against anyone (immigrants and citizens included), it has often been accepted in many cases:
In general, no administrative warrant is enforceable against ANYONE. But administrative warrants are frequently accepted in a variety of settings, e.g., employer enforcement where an agency is looking for wage and hours records or compliance with verification of authorization to work. Individuals who are shown a warrant should read it carefully and can tell the officer they will not comply unless the warrant is issued by a member of the federal judiciary. State judges do not have the power to grant federal officers the right to arrest.
Sarah Owings, an immigration attorney in Atlanta, Georgia, told Snopes over the phone that ICE has no administrative warrant powers over U.S. citizens. "A judicial warrant could be obtained to arrest a U.S. citizen, but they are not going to do that," she said.
One reason is because of how complex the process of obtaining such a warrant can be. In a phone conversation, Nathan Yaffe, an immigration lawyer in New York, told Snopes that while an administrative warrant could simply be signed by an ICE official, the process for getting a judicial warrant can take longer: "You have to convince the judge that there is probable cause [their] search will reveal a crime or unlawful activity."
However, Yaffe added, the focus on the type of warrant needed to arrest individuals is a distraction from ICE's general practices.
"It's unfortunate that many elected officials and people in the media are fixating on the judicial warrant aspect, because it has never been the case that ICE gets judicial warrants prior to making arrests. It is extraordinarily rare," he said.
He continued, "[The demand for a warrant] is founded on an inaccurate premise that ICE is operating 'lawfully' to get a judicial warrant. It wrongly creates exceptionalism around this moment and feeds into the idea there is a procedural justice fix. People should be attacking ICE practices across the board and not just under Trump in that case. There is a good argument [ICE] needs an administrative warrant to make the arrest but even that practice is not a meaningful layer of protection because ICE is basically giving itself permission."
ICE generally does not have the authority to arrest U.S. citizens without a warrant except in certain circumstances. Yaffe said all three of the following criteria would have to be met to justify the arrest of a citizen:
ICE has to be actively in the middle of performing duties related to immigration enforcement.
The person they are arresting has to have been committing an "offense against the United States." That would be a subset of federal crimes.
There has to have been "a likelihood of the person escaping before a warrant could be obtained."
As stated in 8 U.S. Code 1357, in section 5 of "Powers without warrant," agents can arrest anyone "for any offense against the United States, if the offense is committed in the officer's or employee's presence" or "for any felony" and if the agent believes the citizen will escape before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest.
In a news release, the New York American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) called Lander's arrest "a stunning abuse of power and a threat to our democracy":
Arresting a public official, the duly-elected comptroller of the City of New York, for asking questions is dangerous intimidation and shows a wanton disregard for the will of the people of New York. It sends an unmistakably authoritarian message — that ICE doesn't care about the rule of law and that anyone exercising their right to challenge ICE and speak up for immigrants will be punished.
DHS sent us a statement from Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin in which she accused Lander of assaulting law enforcement and impeding a federal officer:
New York City Comptroller Brad Lander was arrested for assaulting law enforcement and impeding a federal officer. Our heroic ICE law enforcement officers face a 413% increase in assaults against them — it is wrong that politicians seeking higher office undermine law enforcement safety to get a viral moment. No one is above the law, and if you lay a hand on a law enforcement officer, you will face consequences.
Looking at footage of Lander, we could not see any evidence of him assaulting law enforcement; rather, he kept repeating, "I will let go [of the immigrant] when you show me the judicial warrant [for Edgardo]."
Lander had linked arms with Edgardo, the individual being detained by ICE. Lander was eventually separated and held against a wall, where ICE agents handcuffed him. After an agent accused him of "obstruction," he said, "I'm not obstructing, I'm standing right here in the hallway, I have to see the judicial warrant."
Under the U.S. Code, Yaffe told us, the following criteria would have to be true for ICE to justify Lander's arrest, and in his view the conditions were clearly "not met":
[If] Lander was assaulting an officer or committing a crime against the United States. It would be a closer call if [ICE] said 'obstruction of justice' was taking place. [...] They would [also] have to say they believed Lander would evade their attempt to arrest him by going into hiding, or escaping before they could get a warrant [for Lander]."
Yaffe added that he believed the idea that Lander, who is New York City's comptroller and running for mayor, would attempt to evade the law is "ridiculous."
"We are in very unprecedented times," Owings told Snopes. "[By] making decisions to use police powers against people who should not be subject to them."
When it comes to Edgardo, the immigrant detained by ICE, Yaffe noted they still would have needed a warrant to arrest him at an immigration court "or [had] an individualized determination that he was a flight risk." In general, he said, "ICE is not making individualized findings about people they are arresting right now. [Or] they are just implementing a blanket policy. I am confident that there wasn't a warrant for [Edgardo's] arrest."
Regardless, Edgardo was taken into ICE detention and had no lawyer, according to Lander. Lander said after his own release: "Tonight, I'll go home and sleep in my bed. I have a lawyer, I'll get due process. But Edgardo, whose arm was ripped from mine by ICE agents, has none of those things."
Benson said Lander could "have asked for identification of the officer approaching and questioned the officer on why they had a reasonable suspicion of alienage other than the [immigrant] person's presence in the immigration court."
While we do not know the specifics of Edgardo's case, he appeared to be cooperating with the government requirement to appear in immigration court. That people like him are being detained is, according to Benson, a sign of rising numbers of immigrant arrests by DHS, including the arrests of people who comply with the legal process of seeking asylum:
But under our domestic and international laws, the DHS cannot summarily deport people who have a credible fear of persecution in their country. So what should happen even if the case is terminated, is that the individual will have the right to present his/her/their claim to an asylum officer who if finding it meets the lower standard, will put the person into REGULAR removal proceedings. Exactly where these people were before the case was terminated.
Despite the above restrictions, as of this writing ICE has still detained and deported numerous U.S. citizens in 2025, including children born in the United States.
"8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and Harboring Certain Aliens." LII / Legal Information Institute, Cornell. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324. Accessed 19 June 2025.
"8 USC 1357: Powers of Immigration Officers and Employees." U.S. Code. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:8%20section:1357%20edition:prelim). Accessed 19 June 2025.
Benson, Leni. Professor of Law, New York Law School. Email, 18 June 2025.
Danner, Chas. "U.S. Citizens Keep Getting Caught Up in Trump's Immigration Crackdown." Intelligencer, 3 May 2025, https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/tracking-us-citizens-children-detained-deported-ice-trump-updates.html. Accessed 19 June 2025.
Doherty, Erin. "NYC Mayoral Candidate Brad Lander Released after Arrest by ICE." CNBC, 17 June 2025, https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/17/brad-lander-ice-mayoral-comptroller.html. Accessed 19 June 2025.
Ferré-Sadurní, Luis. "Brad Lander, NYC Mayoral Candidate, Arrested by ICE Agents at Immigration Courthouse." The New York Times, 17 June 2025. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/17/nyregion/brad-lander-immigration-ice.html. Accessed 19 June 2025.
Ferré-Sadurní, Luis. "Brad Lander Tried to Escort Immigrants Facing Arrest. He's Not Alone." The New York Times, 19 June 2025. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/19/nyregion/ice-immigrants-volunteer-escorts-courthouse.html. Accessed 19 June 2025.
"NYC Mayoral Candidate Brad Lander Arrested at Immigration Court." AP News, 17 June 2025, https://apnews.com/article/brad-lander-nyc-immigration-court-arrest-6ed341297efab31a08a14421674d8ed8. Accessed 19 June 2025.
"NYC Mayoral Candidate Brad Lander Arrested by ICE: Raw Video." YouTube, Fox 5 New York, 17 June 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_cT0GQln1w. Accessed 19 June 2025.
"NYC Comptroller Brad Lander's Wife Speaks out about His Arrest." YouTube, CBS New York, 17 June 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyuehLS5ID8. Accessed 19 June 2025.
"NYCLU on Arrest of City Comptroller." NYCLU, https://www.nyclu.org/press-release/nyclu-on-arrest-of-city-comptroller. Accessed 19 June 2025.
Owings , Sarah. Immigration Attorney. Telephone, 18 June 2025.
Warrants and Subpoenas 101. National Immigration Law Center, Sept. 2020, https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Warrants-and-Subpoenas-101.pdf. Accessed 19 June 2025.
Yaffe, Nathan. Immigration Lawyer. Telephone, 18 June 2025.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

27 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Aflac discloses cyber intrusion linked to wider crime spree targeting insurance industry

This story was originally published on Cybersecurity Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Cybersecurity Dive newsletter. Major insurance provider Aflac Inc. said Friday that it was the target of a cyberattack on June 12 that is linked to a major cybercrime spree focusing on the industry. The company said it was able to contain the attack within hours and confirmed its systems remain operational. 'We continue to serve our customers as we respond to this incident and can underwrite policies, review claims and otherwise service our customers as usual,' the company said in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing. The incident is part of a larger crime wave targeting the insurance industry that researchers have linked to a collective known as Scattered Spider. The group recently conducted a weeks-long attack campaign against retailers in the U.S. and the U.K. Erie Insurance Group last week disclosed that it was the target of a cyberattack that began on June 7. The company said Tuesday that it has regained control over its systems and sees no further evidence of malicious activity. Erie is working with third-party forensic experts to restore full access to customers, agents and employees. Researchers from Google Threat Intelligence Group on Monday warned that the same hackers targeting the retail sector had pivoted toward the insurance industry. Google has not attributed the attacks to any actor but said they show the hallmarks of Scattered Spider, the notorious threat group linked to the 2023 MGM Resorts and Clorox hacks. "Given this actor's history of focusing on a sector at a time, the insurance industry should be on high alert, especially for social engineering schemes which target their help desks and call centers,' John Hultquist, chief analyst at GTIG, told Cybersecurity Dive in a statement. The retail sector intrusions began in April, with U.K. retailer Marks and Spencer and the Harrods department store chain among the major victims. In the U.S., the hacking spree hit Victoria's Secret and United Natural Foods, the largest supplier for Whole Foods, the grocery chain owned by Amazon. Aflac has begun a process of reviewing files that may have been accessed. The review is still in its early stages and Alfac said it cannot immediately determine how many people were affected. The files contain claims information, health records, Social Security numbers and other personal data related to customers, employees, beneficiaries, agents and other individuals. The company plans to notify regulators and will send breach letters to affected individuals and provide credit monitoring and identity-theft services. (Adds comment from Google) Sign in to access your portfolio

Yahoo

31 minutes ago

• Yahoo

‘This presidency is a brand-franchise': Trump has taken the commercialization of politics to a new level

'I like thinking big. I always have. To me it's very simple: if you're going to be thinking anyway, you might as well think big.' Those were Donald Trump's words to writer Tony Schwartz in the Art of the Deal. In his second term, Trump has been thinking big about making money. Since his reelection campaign began, Trump is estimated to have more than doubled his net worth to $5.4bn. A sizeable chunk of that cash has come from the launch of Trump-branded products. This week the Trump Organization entered the mobile phone business with a Trump-branded service that will include a 'sleek gold' phone, which costs $499, that is 'made in America'. Maybe? Never to miss a patriotic marketing moment, they launched Trump Mobile at Trump Tower in New York on the 10-year anniversary of their father's announcement at the top of a gold escalator, to the sound of Neil Young's Rockin' in the Free World, that he would run for president. The premium tier of service would be dubbed the 47 Plan, priced at $47.45 a month. Donald Trump Jr said the brothers had partnered with 'some of the greatest people in the industry to make sure that real Americans get true value from their mobile carriers'. 'Celebrity' phone launches are hardly new. The launch announcement came days after the actor-hosts of the popular SmartLess podcast – Will Arnett, Jason Bateman and Sean Hayes – announced their own cut price phone plan, and more than two years since actor Ryan Reynolds profited from his stake in Mint Mobile, sold to T-Mobile for $1.35bn. So was Trump – or the Trumps – thinking big or just following a pattern of seemingly random licensing deals that renew concerns about the president's business enterprises? After all, if Trump is really concerned about phone prices, he could – as president – push for legislative change. 'There was a lot of dialog when Trump returned to power that we would see in this term a particularly interesting residency in the White House about how much money would be made,' says marketing-PR guru Mark Borkowski, 'and this is a typical Trump side-hustle playing off Maga patriotism.' The blurred lines between business and politics, impacting how candidates are portrayed, policies are shaped and voters engage with the political process – commonly referred to as the commercialization of politics – may not be Trump's to own exclusively, but he's taken it to a new level. 'It is troubling, and more than in jest, that this is now a political economy and he's actually saying this presidency is a brand-franchise,' says Borkowski. 'There is no separation between power and profit. He's redrawn the boundaries between commerce and the office of the president, and he's accelerated the notion of post-ethical politics.' The gold phone and patriotically-priced phone plan – '47' referring to Trump's current term, and '45' referring to the previous – is only the latest ask of the Maga (Make America Great Again) faithful, otherwise known as ultra-Magas, to show their commitment in dollar terms. 'The Trumps' continued business expansion often serves to reinforce Trump's political persona rather than distract from it. For Maga supporters, his business ventures are interpreted as proof of his self-made success and outsider status – both key pillars of his political brand,' says Zak Revskyi at the New York brand management consultancy Baden Bower. 'These business moves don't just coexist with his political identity – they actively feed into it. They help sustain the image of Trump as a results-oriented executive who blends capitalism with populism,' Revskyi adds. On Thursday, Bloomberg revealed that investment bank Dominari Holdings, where Donald Jr and Eric work as advisers, helped an obscure toymaker selling Smurf-branded tumblers, koala backpacks and plush sea turtles, pivot into crypto this week, sending its shares up more than 500%. The outlet noted that there was no sign in regulatory filings that Trump family members were involved in this or previous crypto-related transactions through the bank – which is based in Trump Tower – but noted that 'the gain added to the windfalls of executives orbiting the president's family'. Aside from the Trump's well-publicized (and profitable) adventures in crypto – his ownership stake in World Liberty Financial produced $57,355,532 in income since it was launched last year – the family brand has upped by 20 its Trump-branded real-estate projects around the globe, calculated Citizens for Ethics, including an 80-storey skyscraper in Dubai, and plans for branded hotels in Riyadh and Jeddah, and a golf course in Qatar, to an estimated value of $10bn. A 234-page financial disclosure form released by the Office of Government Ethics this month showed 145 pages of stock and bond investments. The disclosure showed that 2024 was a very good year for royalty payments from products featuring his name and likeness. Among them, calculated NBC News, was $3m from a Save America coffee table book; $2.5m from Trump sneakers and fragrances; $2.8m from Trump watches; $1.3m from a Trump-endorsed Bible; and just over $1m each from '45' guitars and non-fungible token (NFT) sales. Most have at least some aspect of gold-coloring, according to a review of the 'Golden Age of America' Trump collection. Many of the assets are held in a revocable trust overseen by Donald Jr, including more than 100,000 shares, or 53%, of Trump Media and Technology Group, the company that owns Truth Social, valued at 5.15bn, or held in partnerships that do not require divestment under conflict of interest laws. The business of selling the family name hums along despite, or because of, the on-the-fly dramas that envelope the White House from week to week. The White House claims that the president 'has been the most transparent president in history in all respects, including when it comes to his finances', noting that Trump handed over 'his multibillion-dollar empire in order to serve our country, and he has sacrificed greatly'. The Trump phone, which analysts doubt can be 'made in America', as promotional materials assert, is merely an add-on to a thriving political-business operation. Democrats have found it hard to find a footing in calling out the interplay, in part because Trump's predecessor, Joe Biden, was similarly accused of allowing a family business of influence peddling to evolve around him and issued a pre-emptive pardon of family members before he left office. 'I don't do it for the money. I've got enough, much more than I'll ever need. I do it to do it,' Trump wrote in the opening lines of in the Art of the Deal, published in 1987. 'Deals are my art form. Other people paint beautifully on canvas or write wonderful poetry. I like making deals, preferably big deals. That's how I get my kicks.' But under Trump politics and business have become melded as never before. 'It's a new hyper-reality that exists in America,' says Borkowski. 'It's about turning political fandom into money, and he's laughing all the way to the bank. He's doing exactly what was expected. Nobody in Trump's heartland sees this as damaging – it's what they expect a deal-maker to do. The absurdity of everything Trump does is the point.'

Yahoo

32 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Advantages of Social Security Privatization, According to Experts

Social Security privatization would shift retirement funding from the government to individual Americans. Proponents of privatization believe it can lead to higher investment returns, thus providing retirees with more money in retirement. For some, the focus on personal responsibility is key. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook › If you want to get people worked up, ask a small group of friends what they think of Social Security privatization. Privatization refers to the idea of shifting the management and funding of retirement from the government to individuals. In other words, rather than paying Social Security taxes as part of FICA, you would keep the money and invest for retirement on your own. Experts have dramatically different opinions on privatization, with some fearing that it will lead to more people entering retirement with little to no financial resources. Those arguing in favor of privatizing the program take a completely different view. Here's how they believe the change would benefit the average American worker. Imagine that a portion of your Social Security taxes were invested in a personal account rather than used to fund current retirees' benefits. You could invest in stocks and bonds to your heart's content. In fact, you could invest in any vehicle you believe will provide a strong return. One of the beauties of investing is the way compound interest can significantly increase your retirement savings over time. As long as you begin investing early and are consistent, proponents of privatization believe you're in a position to build up more money than you could ever collect through Social Security payments. Proponents believe that Americans will appreciate the ability to invest their retirement savings where they want. Rather than paying it into a program supporting current retirees, they can choose where their money will go. However, the open question becomes: What happens to the millions of current retirees when workers stop paying into the system? Read any message board, and you're likely to find plenty of people with an opinion about Social Security privatization. It's been a hot-button topic since President George W. Bush first suggested it in his 1978 Congressional race, then pushed for it again following his successful 2004 presidential campaign. Since that time, the subject has been supported by a rotating cast of politicians, who claim it will put the responsibility for saving on individuals rather than allowing them to depend on the government to provide a safety net. While this reasoning overlooks the fact that Americans spend decades contributing to the system and Social Security has never been a public assistance program, it does appeal to the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" crowd. Proponents believe that pushing Americans to invest on their own means greater financial literacy among the masses. It's also believed that it will foster a culture of savings and investment. While this may be true for some, it's fair to imagine that wealthier Americans can afford to pay financial planners to help them make the most of their investments, while workers living paycheck to paycheck may have trouble saving the funds at all. It's likely that most people would like to save for retirement, but not everyone can afford to do so. The good news is that plenty of people are actively involved in seeking a solution to potential Social Security shortages. It may turn out that some form of Social Security privatization -- such as a hybrid system that allows you to continue paying into the current system while setting aside some money to make your own investments -- will be the answer. Or, it may be something entirely different. While proponents of Social Security privatization offer numerous potential advantages, it's yet to be seen if anyone will come up with a better solution. If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Advantages of Social Security Privatization, According to Experts was originally published by The Motley Fool Sign in to access your portfolio