/>iA Workplace Hypothetical
It’s mid-morning at a company’s headquarters, a professional office connected to a warehouse facility. Reception calls to inform the employer that Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents are in the lobby. They present a document titled “Warrant for Entry.” It bears a judge’s signature, but it is not a criminal warrant; rather, it is a civil warrant issued under immigration authority. The agents explain that it authorizes them to enter private areas of the workplace, including offices and the warehouse floor, to look for undocumented individuals. Managers turn to the employer for guidance. On the one hand, he wants to cooperate fully with law enforcement. On the other, he may be aware that admitting ICE could raise constitutional issues and create legal exposure for the company. Should the owner allow access? Wait for counsel? This is a dilemma employers may face when confronted with what are known as Blackie’s warrants.
The Nature of Blackie’s Warrants
Blackie’s warrants are named after the 1981 case Blackie’s House of Beef v. Castillo, where the D.C. Circuit held that the Immigration and Naturalization Service could obtain civil warrants from judges to conduct worksite searches. A Blackie’s warrant is a judicially issued civil search warrant. It differs from a criminal warrant because it does not require the same probable cause standard that evidence of a crime will be found. Instead, it is issued in the context of civil immigration enforcement and authorizes ICE to enter nonpublic commercial areas to look for individuals who may be removable under immigration law. The warrant must be signed by a judge or magistrate and must specify the place and scope of the search.
This distinguishes Blackie’s warrants from administrative warrants ICE officers can issue internally, such as Form I-200 (warrant for arrest of an alien) or Form I-205 (warrant of removal/deportation). Those ICE-issued documents are not reviewed by a judge, do not carry judicial authority, and do not allow agents to enter private areas of a workplace without employer consent. Confusion between the two types of warrants is common during worksite encounters.
The Texas Federal Court Challenge
In May 2025, the Southern District of Texas addressed the limits of Blackie’s warrants. U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew Edison rejected ICE’s application for an administrative inspection warrant to search a private business for unauthorized workers. The court held that because employers can face criminal penalties for knowingly employing undocumented workers, such a search was inherently criminal in nature and required a criminal warrant based on probable cause, not a civil warrant. Judge Edison further criticized the government’s application for overbreadth, which sought access to “any locked area” without particularity. He noted that people are not documents or safety hazards, underscoring that immigration enforcement cannot be justified as a routine administrative inspection. This case demonstrates that even judicially issued civil warrants, if vague or expansive, may be subject to challenge for failing to meet constitutional standards.
Comparing Types of Warrants
Employers may encounter three categories of warrants in worksite enforcement. A Blackie’s warrant is a civil search warrant signed by a judge or magistrate. It allows ICE to enter nonpublic commercial areas to look for removable individuals, but its authority is narrower than that of a criminal search warrant. A judicial criminal search warrant, issued under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41, requires probable cause of a crime and allows agents to search for specific evidence in designated places. An administrative ICE warrant, by contrast, is signed only by ICE officials and does not authorize entry into private spaces without employer consent. The employer’s dilemma lies in knowing which document is being presented, since refusing a valid judicial warrant can lead to obstruction charges, while complying with an overreaching administrative document can expose the company to privacy, civil rights, and state-law liability.
Public and Private Work Areas
The distinction between public and private spaces remains critical. ICE may lawfully enter public areas of a workplace, such as lobbies or reception desks, without a warrant. Entry into nonpublic areas (including private offices, internal hallways, break rooms, and warehouse floors) requires either employer consent or a judicially issued warrant. Employers that grant entry based only on an ICE-issued administrative form risk exceeding their legal obligations and violating employee rights.
Employee Rights
Employees confronted during worksite enforcement have certain protections. They may decline to answer questions about their immigration status. Employers may wish to be careful not to facilitate questioning in a way that creates claims of discrimination or retaliation. In unionized workplaces, collective bargaining agreements may impose further obligations if ICE enforcement affects working conditions. The risks cut both ways: ICE may view resistance as noncooperation, but employees may view over-compliance as a violation of their rights.
Employer Challenges
Employers find themselves caught in a double bind. Refusing entry under a judicial warrant may risk obstruction charges. Cooperating too broadly under an ICE-issued administrative warrant may risk constitutional challenges, employee claims, and even penalties under state law. The uncertainty can create operational disruption, reputational harm, and long-term legal consequences. This dilemma may be especially pronounced in businesses that operate both public-facing offices and restricted warehouse facilities, where the boundaries between public and private spaces are not always clear.
Additional Legal and Practical Risks
Two further issues may amplify the stakes. First is data privacy. ICE requests often include I-9s, payroll records, and personnel files. Employers risk violating federal or state privacy laws by producing records without proper judicial authorization. With state-level privacy statutes expanding, especially in California and other states, mishandling employee data during enforcement may carry liability. Second are state and local sanctuary laws. Some jurisdictions impose penalties on employers who voluntarily allow ICE access to nonpublic areas or who provide records without a judicial warrant, while other states actively prohibit sanctuary policies and require cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Multi-state employers may face a complex patchwork of conflicting obligations, and what may appear as lawful cooperation in one jurisdiction could trigger penalties in another.
Preparing for ICE Visits
Preparation may help resolve this tension. Employers may wish to adopt a worksite enforcement response plan that distinguishes clearly among types of warrants. Staff may be trained to request and examine the document carefully, to contact legal counsel immediately, and to document the interaction. Employers may wish to avoid granting consent beyond what is legally required, particularly when ICE presents an administrative warrant signed only by the agency. In all cases, the company’s designated legal point of contact may take the lead in determining the proper response.
Conclusion
ICE’s use of Blackie’s warrants underscores the balance between cooperation with law enforcement and protection of constitutional rights. Unlike ICE-issued administrative warrants, Blackie’s warrants do carry judicial authority, but recent rulings highlight their constitutional limits. For employers, the challenge may be acute: cooperate fully and risk overstepping the law, or resist and risk government retaliation. Especially in workplaces that combine public and private areas, preparation and clarity are essential. With appropriate policies, training, and legal support, employers may be able to protect their interests and their employees’ rights when ICE arrives at the workplace door.
