WHAT’S THE ISSUE?
Hagens Berman has joined the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights in litigation against the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); its acting director, Todd Lyons; U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS); and its former secretary, Kristi Noem, accusing the parties of violating federal law by effectuating unconstitutional searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment protects all “people” in the United States—regardless of citizenship—from search or seizures without a valid judicial warrant. Defendant Todd Lyons authorized ICE officers to enter homes and make immigration arrests in 2025, even using force to do so, in violation of constitutional principles and well-established jurisprudence governing judicial warrants, the lawsuit states. The firm represents three Massachusetts-based nonprofits serving local immigrant communities.
ICE MEMO AUTHORIZES UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTS
According to the lawsuit, on May 12, 2025, Lyons issued a signed memorandum titled “Utilizing Form I-205, Warrant of Removal,” which purported to authorize ICE officers to enter home, including by force, without a judicial order, consent, or exigent circumstance. “Specifically, the Lyons Memo permits ICE officers to rely on only Form I-205—issued when a resident is subject to a final order of removal or deportation—to enter a resident’s home,” the lawsuit states. Defendants also sought to enact the memo’s guidance in secret: existence of the Lyons memo only came to light thanks to a former ICE agent and whistleblower who filed a complaint in January 2026.
“In issuing the Lyons Memo, the Defendants have established an official policy that is unlawful and unconstitutional, that abrogates longstanding agency practices and regulations, and that bypasses the required rulemaking process—all without explanation or legal basis,” the lawsuit states. “In its second paragraph, the Lyons Memo acknowledges that this is a sharp departure from prior practice.” No change in the law allows for this legal determination, according to attorneys.
This memo disrupts guidance from plaintiffs Greater Boston Latino Network, Brazilian Worker Center and the Massachusetts Communities Action Network who seek to educate their constituencies about the rights that protect them in their homes. Under law, the nonprofits advised, ICE officers could not enter their homes without a validly issued judicial warrant. Lyons’ memo “cast doubt on that advice, upending these organizations’ educational programming on the topic and diminishing their credibility within the communities they serve.” According to the lawsuit, plaintiffs have been forced to divert already scarce resources away from job training, educational services, housing and healthcare support to respond to Lyons’ memo via counseling and know-your-rights trainings to the tens of thousands of individuals they aid.
IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS EXPLAINED
As the Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota recently stated, “ICE is not a law unto itself.” Attorneys seek to uphold the constitutional rights of individuals in the U.S.
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, ICE officers may not make an arrest “without warrant” unless an officer “has reason to believe that the alien so arrested is in the United States in violation of any such law or regulation and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest.”
Likewise, Department of Homeland Security regulations, prohibit ICE from “enter[ing] into the non-public areas of . . . a residence including the curtilage of such residence . . . for the purpose of questioning the occupants or employees concerning their right to be or remain in the United States unless the officer has either a warrant or the consent of the owner or other person in control of the site to be inspected.”
According to the lawsuit, defendants violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The lawsuit seeks declaratory judgment and injunctive relief to hold unlawful, vacate and to set aside Lyons’ memo pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act. Attorneys also seek to enjoin the defendants and their officers from implementing or effectuating the behavior in question.
RESISTANCE VERSUS TYRANNY
The lawsuit states that official policy set forth in Lyons’ memo is in effect and is being carried out across the country. ICE has hired thousands of new officers in the last year who are being instructed and trained to follow the memo’s guidance.
Hagens Berman believes in upholding the rights of individuals under the constitution. No person should live in fear of illegal search and seizure, especially in their own home. The firm has taken up the mantle to resist and fight unlawful acts, including the Lyons memo, through the law. Courts have already enjoined similar ICE policies that conflict with longstanding legal principles, according to the lawsuit, citing a Minnesota district court decision.
TRUMP PRO BONO TASK FORCE
In March 2025, Hagens Berman joined the effort to stop the blatantly illegal and dangerous acts undertaken by the Trump administration. Despite the threat of making the firm a target, after due deliberation and consideration of all views, the firm committed the efforts of several of its attorneys from across the country to vigilantly defend the rights of the public under the Constitution through the law. Our firm remains steadfastly dedicated to justice and continues to pursue pro bono opportunities to combat the Trump administration’s unlawful acts. Read more about the firm’s pro bono task force to support the rule of law »
