As media across the country report a significant rise of immigration enforcement activities under the new Trump Administration, it is imperative that employers establish policies and protocols for responding to possible immigration enforcement activities at the workplace. This alert offers legal background about employers’ rights and duties, and practical guidance for interacting with Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Since President Donald Trump took office on January 20, 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) has detained over 100,000 people across the U.S. through various enforcement activities.¹ There have been reports that these detentions include even U.S. citizens or other individuals with lawful status.² Especially recently, the Administration appears to be targeting California cities throughout the State, most visibly including Los Angeles and San Francisco. ICE raids and other enforcement activities have sparked protests statewide, prompting President Trump to deploy the National Guard and the Marines to Los Angeles.³ Breaking with prior precedent, even during the first Trump Administration, ICE has conducted raids in places once thought of as off-limits, such as courthouses, churches, schools, medical facilities, and places of employment outside of traditionally immigrant-heavy sectors. Given this new landscape for immigration enforcement, employers in California (and nationwide) are struggling with balancing their obligation to comply with applicable federal and state laws, and their desire to provide a safe workplace for their employees.

What Is ICE’s Authority to Enter or Search Workplaces?

Law enforcement, including ICE, can generally access public areas of the workplace, even for private sector employers. The public vs. non-public distinction is determined not just by applicable law, but also by actual usage. A public area is simply any area that is used, or held out for the use, of the public, whether owned and operated by public or private interests. Non-public spaces in the workplace are those that are restricted from general entry – these are the areas that ICE must have proper legal authority to enter.

There is some overlap with the distinction between private and public property, but the issues are not identical. For example, in an office setting, if a lobby or reception area can be entered off the street by any member of the public, then it may be considered a public space, which means ICE can enter that area without a warrant. On the other hand, the lobby or reception area on the 25th floor of an office building that contains building security at the ground level and a security door when stepping off an elevator may be considered a non-public place. However, if employers regularly allow members of the public to enter and roam around in what would otherwise be non-public areas, those areas may be considered public based on usage.

Once it is determined whether the area of the workplace is public or non-public, employers should assess whether ICE has proper legal authority to enter or search. As to non-public areas of the workplace, ICE can generally gain access in one of three ways: (1) in exigent circumstances, (2) if given consent, or (3) with a warrant. Said another way, in the absence of a warrant, ICE can only enter non-public areas of the workplace if given consent or in the case of an emergency.

Exigent Circumstances: ICE is allowed to enter non-public areas of the workplace without a warrant if necessary to prevent bodily harm or destruction of evidence, or to chase an escaping suspect. ICE is also generally allowed to enter without a warrant in the event of an ongoing and immediate emergency, such as an encroaching fire or a mass shooter situation.

Consent: ICE can enter non-public areas of the workplace without a warrant if given consent by any employee. ICE does not need to obtain consent from, for instance, an Executive Director or General Manager before entering; if the receptionist or other employee who just happens to be walking by gives consent, that may suffice. This means that all employees should be informed and/or trained on the company’s policies with respect to giving voluntary consent to law enforcement and ICE to enter or search the workplace. Employers should also be aware of their obligations under the California Immigration Worker Protection Act (CIWPA),⁴ which went into effect in 2018. The Act prohibits employers (or someone acting on behalf of the employer) from giving voluntary consent to immigration enforcement agents to enter or search non-public areas of the workplace, or from accessing, reviewing, or seizing employee personnel records without a warrant. The Act applies to both public and private sector employers, and imposes civil penalties of $2,000 – $5,000 for an initial violation and $5,000 – $10,000 for each subsequent violation.

Warrants: Without exigent circumstances or consent, ICE may only enter non-public areas of the workplace with a warrant. Warrants come in a variety of different forms, including administrative vs. judicial warrants and search vs. arrest warrants. Arrest warrants give law enforcement, including ICE, valid legal authority to arrest a specific person. The warrant must be issued from a court and signed by a judge or magistrate. A search warrant gives law enforcement, including ICE, the authority to enter a specifically designated non-public place and inspect or search for specifically designated things. It must also be issued by a court and signed by a judge or magistrate. An administrative warrant, also known as an “ICE warrant,” gives ICE agents the authority to arrest a specifically identified person for civil immigration purposes. Administrative warrants are issued by the Department of Homeland Security and do not need to be signed by a judge or magistrate; they are often signed by an immigration officer. Unlike judicial warrants (search and arrest), administrative warrants do not give ICE legal authority to enter or search non-public areas of the workplace.

What if ICE or Another Government Agency Requests Access to Employment Records?

The CIWPA also imposes obligations on employers in responding to employee records requests. Specifically, the Act requires all employers to provide direct notice to employees within 72 hours of receiving any request or notice of inspections of I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification Forms, or other employment records, from a government agency. The notice must include the name of the agency conducting the inspection, the date the employer received notice of the inspection, and the nature of the inspection to the extent known. Employers also must provide affected employees with a copy of the notice of inspection.

After the inspection, employers must provide affected employees notice of the results within 72 hours of receipt from the immigration agency. Delivery of the results notice must be attempted by hand; mail or e-mail delivery is only permitted where hand delivery is not possible. The results notice must contain a description of the deficiencies or other items identified in the inspection results, the time period for correcting any potential deficiencies, the time and date of any meeting with the employer to correct deficiencies, and notice that the employee has the right to representation during any employer meeting.

How Should Employers Direct the Workforce in the Event of an ICE Raid at the Workplace?

The most critical aspect of preparation for possible ICE presence in the workplace is setting protocols and educating relevant personnel about the same. Employers should:

1. Secure non-public areas: Post signage on doors to non-public areas of the workplace (e.g., “Authorized Personnel Only”), restrict access with badged entry systems where possible, and keep certain doors locked at all times (keeping in mind fire and other safety standards).
2. Create a notification plan: Include direction on closing access points, information on who will interact with ICE agents, who needs to be notified of their presence, and who has decision-making authority.
3. Create an engagement plan: Designate who is authorized to speak to ICE agents, evaluate a warrant presented, or give consent; how to manage clients, customers, vendors, or other visitors that might be on-site; and direction on opening locked doors or gates.
4. Create a follow-up plan: Establish processes for documenting the interaction and managing employee reactions.

Employers in the healthcare industry will need to consider additional nuances related to patient care and patient privacy rights. For instance, if ICE is on premises looking for a patient rather than an employee, an employer could potentially violate HIPAA by simply confirming that the patient receives treatment at the location. Similarly, public agencies will need to consider whether their workplace is on government property or entirely considered a public place. It is even more imperative that employers in these industries consult with legal counsel when preparing a notification and interaction plan for ICE presence at the workplace.

Employers must comply with law enforcement and ICE searches and audit requests, if there are proper legal grounds. However, the CWIPA prohibits employers from voluntarily consenting to searches and audits where no such proper legal grounds exist. Since interactions with law enforcement and ICE are often high-tension, it is crucial that employers and employees be prepared in advance through a thorough ICE response plan and training. If you would like assistance with such an initiative, please contact your trusted Hanson Bridgett counsel.

---

¹ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ice-arrests-under-trump-100k/

² https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-ice-detained-citizenship-proof.html

³ https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/10/trump-la-marines-protests-guard.html

⁴ https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/AB_450_QA.pdf