A U.S. District Court recently denied a government application for an administrative inspection warrant to enter a private business for the purpose of searching for and seizing undocumented immigrants and investigating a pattern or practice of employing unauthorized aliens (sometimes referred to as a “Blackie’s” warrant after a seminal case, discussed below). Unlike a criminal search warrant, administrative inspection warrants may allow a government agency to search a premises for a civil administrative purpose (as opposed to a criminal investigation) and may generally be issued pursuant to a less rigorous standard as compared to criminal search warrants. In In re Sealed Search Warrant Application, the court rejected the government’s efforts to obtain an administrative inspection warrant rather than a criminal search warrant, reasoning that it could not issue an administrative inspection warrant in the context of a workplace immigration raid based on a lesser showing than that required for criminal search warrants under the Fourth Amendment. No. CV 3:25-MC-05067, 2025 WL 1499054 (S.D. Tex. May 27, 2025).
Background on Administrative Inspection Warrants
In general, warrantless searches are considered per se unreasonable and therefore violate the Fourth Amendment. This rule applies to government searches of commercial premises as well as homes. To obtain a search warrant under the Fourth Amendment, the government must generally make a showing that it has probable cause to believe that the search will uncover evidence of a crime and must describe with particularity the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Courts may also issue administrative inspection warrants in non-criminal contexts, allowing government agencies to enter and inspect private premises for potential violations of a rule or regulation, usually relating to public health or safety. Courts have recognized that administrative inspection searches are inherently different than criminal searches, serving to facilitate public health and safety and representing only a more limited invasion of privacy, and therefore have allowed the issuance of warrants in the former context based on a more relaxed standard than in the latter.
In Blackie’s House of Beef, Inc. v. Castillo, the D.C. Circuit found that an administrative inspection warrant was proper for a worksite immigration raid that allowed immigration enforcement officials to enter a private business for the purpose of searching for and seizing workers without lawful status. 659 F.2d 1211 (D.C. Cir. 1981). In support of the warrant, officials provided evidence that they had received information that undocumented immigrants were employed at the business. In the lower court proceeding, the private business owner argued that the warrant violated the Fourth Amendment and the search exceeded all reasonable limits; the court agreed, finding the warrant failed to contain a particularized description of the individuals sought and failed to meet the standard of probable cause as is required to support a warrant for a criminal investigation. On appeal, the D.C. Circuit concluded based on then-applicable immigration laws that while an immigration raid differed from, say, an Occupational Safety and Health Administration inspection, so too did it differ from a criminal investigation. Because (as discussed below) the court determined that the search was not criminal in nature, the traditional standard of probable cause required for criminal searches and seizures did not apply, and the warrant only had to satisfy the standard of “sufficient specificity and reliability to prevent the exercise of unbridled discretion by law enforcement officials.” Shortly thereafter, other courts followed suit, allowing the use of administrative inspection warrants in immigration enforcement contexts. See, e.g., Int’l Molders’ & Allied Workers’ Local Union No. 164 v. Nelson, 799 F.2d 547, 553 (9th Cir. 1986); Kotler Indus., Inc. v. I.N.S., 586 F. Supp. 72, 75 (N.D. Ill. 1984).
Judge Denies Use of an Administrative Inspection Warrant for Immigration Raid
On May 7, 2025, similar to Blackie’s, the U.S. government applied for an administrative inspection warrant in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas to allow Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) agents to search any locked rooms on a particular business’s premises and to seize individuals without lawful status. Unlike in Blackie’s, part of the purpose of the search was to investigate a pattern or practice of employing unauthorized workers, which under today’s laws can carry civil or criminal penalties for an employer. On May 27, Magistrate Judge Andrew M. Edison issued an opinion denying the government’s application, concluding that the court could not issue an administrative inspection warrant in the workplace immigration enforcement context.
Judge Edison focused on key changes in immigration law since Blackie’s in concluding that the government’s proposed search would not be administrative in nature, but rather “inherently criminal.” He reasoned that because a business owner now faces potential criminal penalties for hiring undocumented immigrants without work authorization, the Blackie’s court’s reasoning is inapplicable today. The court’s reasoning in Blackie’s hinged on the fact that – at the time in 1981 – there were no penalties, criminal or otherwise, for an employer hiring undocumented immigrants. In fact, at the time Blackie’s was decided, the Immigration and Nationality Act exempted businesses that employed undocumented immigrants from sanctions. As a result, the Blackie’s court reasoned that the immigration enforcement action at issue there was not criminal in nature. In 1986, however, civil and criminal penalties were introduced for employers who knowingly hired undocumented immigrants not authorized to work in the United States. Thus, Judge Edison found that today, a government investigation of a workplace to identify undocumented immigrants would be criminal in nature; as such, the search is subject to the Fourth Amendment’s probable cause standard for criminal search warrants and the requirements of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41.
Building on this reasoning, Judge Edison found that the government’s proposed warrant was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment where it broadly sought authorization to search anywhere in the target business for anyone believed to be an undocumented immigrant without work authorization. Citing to the “elementary proposition” that “no warrant can authorize the search of everything or everyone in sight” under the Fourth Amendment, Judge Edison determined the requested scope of the warrant was too broad and open-ended, emblematic of the “exact sort of general, exploratory rummaging that the Fourth Amendment was designed to prevent.” He compared the request to geofence warrants, which seek information on all devices located within a specified geographic area and timeframe, and which the Fifth Circuit deemed impermissible general warrants last year. See United States v. Smith, 110 F.4th 817 (5th Cir. 2024). And he wondered aloud whether the government here had sought an administrative warrant in order to “get around the particularity requirements” of a Rule 41 criminal warrant (which it might otherwise have been able to obtain in narrower scope) and enable a broader search of the worksite.
Finally, Judge Edison found that an administrative inspection warrant cannot be used to search for and seize people in any event, as opposed to a criminal warrant obtained pursuant to Rule 41. For these reasons, Judge Edison denied the government’s application for an administrative inspection warrant. (Judge Edison also denied a second similar application from the government, which he found to lack substantial differences from the first application. Op. and Order, No. CV 3:25-MC-00015, at 1 (S.D. Tex. June 9, 2025).) Administrative inspection warrants are just one tool in the federal government’s arsenal as it continues its focus on immigration enforcement activities, but we will be watching to see how other courts analyze attempted use of these types of warrants in the context of workplace raids.