When ICE Comes to the Workplace: What Employers Should Know

Employers throughout Indiana and across the country have faced increased questions about how to respond when U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) agents arrive at a workplace as part of an immigration enforcement operation. Employers may be uncertain about what access ICE agents are entitled to and whether an employer may decline an agent’s request. This article addresses several of the principal rights and responsibilities employers should understand when confronted with a workplace enforcement visit.

Can ICE Enter Your Workplace?

Federal regulations define a “site inspection” as a Department of Homeland Security activity “undertaken to locate and identify aliens illegally in the United States, or aliens engaged in unauthorized employment, at locations where there is a reasonable suspicion, based on articulable facts, that such aliens are present.” 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(f)(1).

The extent to which ICE agents may enter a workplace depends in significant part on whether the area is open to the public. Under 8 C.F.R. 287.8(f)(4), an ICE agent may enter any area of a business to which the general public has access to, without a warrant, consent, or particularized suspicion, for the purpose of questioning a person whom the officer believes to be a noncitizen. 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(f)(4).

Importantly, the rules are different for non-public areas of businesses. An ICE agent may not enter a non-public area for the purpose of questioning employees or occupants unless the officer has either a warrant or the consent of the owner or other person in control of the premises. 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(f)(2). If consent to a site inspection is denied, the regulation provides that the officer may obtain a warrant. Id.

Accordingly, employers should understand the distinction between public and non-public portions of their workplaces. Areas such as a lobby, retail floor, or other space generally open to members of the public are treated differently from offices, employee-only areas, production floors, break rooms, or other spaces where public access is restricted.

Employers should also establish in advance which employees, if any, are authorized to consent to government agents entering non-public areas of the business. Receptionists, supervisors, and other employees who may be the first to encounter ICE agents should know whom to contact and should avoid voluntarily consenting to entry into non-public areas unless they have been specifically authorized to do so.

The first questions an employer should ask when ICE agents seek access to a non-public area is whether the agents have a warrant, and if so, what type of warrant has been presented. As discussed below, not every document labeled “warrant” necessarily authorizes ICE agents to enter non-public areas of the workplace.

What if ICE Presents a Warrant?

The Fourth Amendment protects non-public areas of commercial premises from unreasonable government searches. See Marshall v. Barlow’s, Inc., 436 U.S. 307 (1978) (holding that warrantless, nonconsensual inspections of non-public workplace areas under OSHA violated the Fourth Amendment). Accordingly, whether ICE may enter a non-public area of the workplace without the employer’s consent depends in significant part on the legal authority supporting the agents’ entry. If an ICE agent seeks access to a non-public area and presents a warrant, the employer should first determine what type of warrant has been presented, because not all warrants confer the same authority.

A judicial search warrant is issued by a federal judge or magistrate judge upon a finding of probable cause and generally authorizes law enforcement officers to search the premises identified in the warrant for the persons or property described therein. If ICE agents present a valid judicial search warrant covering the employer’s premises, the employer generally may not refuse entry into areas falling within the scope of the warrant. The employer should, however, carefully review the warrant to confirm that it identifies the correct premises and to determine the scope of the authorized search, including the areas that may be searched and the persons or property that may be located or seized. See U.S. Const. amend. IV; Fed. R. Crim. P. 41. The employer should also contact legal counsel as soon as practicable and should not voluntarily consent to any search that exceeds the scope of the warrant.

Employers may also encounter ICE agents presenting an administrative immigration warrant rather than a judicial search warrant. ICE uses civil administrative warrants, including Form I-200, “Warrant for Arrest of Alien,” and Form I-205, “Warrant of Removal/Deportation.” Unlike judicial search warrants, these warrants are issued by immigration officers within the executive branch and do not require approval from a federal judge or magistrate judge. Administrative immigration warrants generally authorize ICE to take a specifically identified individual into immigration custody. Immigration detention and removal proceedings are civil, rather than criminal, in nature. See United States v. Malagerio, 49 F.4th 911, 915 (5th Cir. 2022) (citing Mahler v. Eby, 264 U.S. 32 (1924)).

An administrative immigration warrant is not the equivalent of a judicial search warrant authorizing a search of private commercial premises. Accordingly, an employer should not assume that the presentation of an administrative warrant, standing alone, authorizes ICE agents to enter and search non-public areas of the workplace. Instead, the employer should carefully review the document to determine who issued it, whom or what it covers, and the authority it purports to confer. If the document is an administrative warrant rather than a judicial search warrant, the employer should avoid voluntarily consenting to entry into non-public areas absent some other lawful basis for access and should promptly contact legal counsel.

Recent 7th Circuit Precedent

In May 2026, the Seventh Circuit issued its decision in Castanon-Nava v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, No. 25-3050 (7th Cir. 2026), in which the court explained that a Form I-200 is “an administrative arrest warrant issued against noncitizens for civil immigration violations by an authorized immigration officer.” Accordingly, the decision supports distinguishing an I-200

administrative arrest warrant from a judicial search warrant authorizing the search of private commercial premises.

Conclusion

ICE worksite enforcement visits can raise immediate and significant legal issues for employers. Understanding the distinction between public and non-public areas of the workplace, as well as the difference between judicial search warrants and administrative immigration warrants, can help employers respond appropriately when agents arrive.

Employers should avoid obstructing lawful enforcement activity, but they also are not required to voluntarily consent to access beyond what the law permits. Employers should also be mindful that employees retain individual rights when interacting with immigration officers, including the right to remain silent in appropriate circumstances, and should avoid directing employees to answer questions about their citizenship or immigration status unless legally required to do so.

The best time to prepare for an ICE worksite visit is before one occurs. Employers should identify who within the organization is authorized to respond to government agents, train front-line employees on whom to contact, and establish a plan for promptly involving legal counsel. A clear response protocol can help employers comply with lawful enforcement activity while protecting the rights of both the business and its employees.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.