By Jerry Filmore
BOSTON — A coalition of immigrant rights organizations and legal advocates has asked a federal court in Boston to immediately halt what they describe as an unlawful U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) policy that allows officers to enter private homes without a judicial warrant.
The request was filed on June 5 as part of an ongoing federal lawsuit brought by the Greater Boston Latino Network, the Brazilian Worker Center, and Massachusetts Communities Action Network. The organizations are represented by Lawyers for Civil Rights (LCR) and pro bono counsel from Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.
According to court filings, the plaintiffs argue that ICE officers have been instructed to rely on internal agency paperwork rather than warrants issued by a judge when entering private residences during immigration enforcement operations. The organizations contend that the policy violates constitutional protections and federal law.
The latest filing includes testimony from a former ICE attorney who has come forward as a whistleblower. According to the declaration submitted to the court, ICE officers were allegedly trained to use internal agency forms known as Form I-205s in place of judicial warrants when conducting certain enforcement actions.
The whistleblower further alleges that the guidance was mandatory within the agency but was not included in written training materials available to the public.
The lawsuit argues that the policy violates the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as federal statutes and administrative procedures.
“The Fourth Amendment is not optional—it is a bedrock protection that no agency, no administration, and no policy can override,” said Brooke Simone, Staff Attorney at Lawyers for Civil Rights, in a statement released Friday.
Attorneys representing the plaintiffs are seeking summary judgment, a legal process that asks the court to decide the case without a full trial if the facts and law are sufficiently clear. They are also requesting immediate relief that would pause enforcement of the policy while the lawsuit proceeds.
Representatives of the organizations involved say the policy has created confusion and fear among immigrant families who have long been advised that law enforcement generally needs a judicial warrant to enter a private home without consent.
“Our organization provides guidance and support to immigrants throughout Greater Boston,” said Lenita Reason, Executive Director of the Brazilian Worker Center. “For decades, we told people that they are safe at home unless law enforcement has a judicial warrant. But now, as a result of ICE’s policy, we don’t know what rights exist anymore.”
Dr. Celina Miranda, Co-Chair of the Greater Boston Latino Network, said the alleged policy has undermined years of community education efforts regarding constitutional rights and interactions with immigration enforcement.
The case, Greater Boston Latino Network et al. v. Markwayne Mullin et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts earlier this year and remains pending.
As of publication, the court has not ruled on the plaintiffs’ request, and ICE has not yet prevailed or been found liable for the allegations presented in the lawsuit. The claims outlined in the filing will ultimately be evaluated by the court as the case proceeds.
Why This Matters
The lawsuit raises questions about constitutional protections, immigration enforcement practices, and the role of judicial oversight when government agencies seek to enter private homes. The outcome could have implications for immigrant communities in Massachusetts and across the country.
🔎 W.U.W. Verification Box
What we know:
- A Motion for Summary Judgment was filed in federal court on June 5, 2026.
- The filing was submitted by Lawyers for Civil Rights and a coalition of immigrant rights organizations.
- The filing includes a declaration from a former ICE attorney acting as a whistleblower.
- Plaintiffs are asking the court to halt the challenged policy while litigation continues.
What we don’t know yet:
- How the federal court will rule on the request.
- Whether ICE will challenge the allegations in future filings.
- Whether any policy changes will occur while the case is pending.
Why the 🔎 matters:
The magnifying glass represents looking closer, asking better questions, checking details, and helping residents understand important issues affecting our communities.
About The Author
