Introduction

The federal government in recent months has adopted an increasingly aggressive posture on deportation. The threat of deportation is invoked particularly against non-citizen immigrants, but also to persons who have had protected legal status—for example, Venezuelans unable to return safely to their country—and (in much less common situations) legal permanent residents. For older adults and persons with disabilities, this aggressive posture raises the possibility of immigration raids conducted in the health care facilities or social service centers in which they receive services.

This fact sheet discusses how immigration law and potential immigration raids might affect operation of the many settings that provide health care and other services to older adults and people with disabilities. This includes nursing facilities, assisted living facilities, and other residential settings, as well as non-residential settings such as senior centers, adult day care centers, and health clinics.

This fact sheet provides a general summary of the law and is not legal advice. Service providers and individuals should consult with a lawyer to discuss recommended courses of action for a specific situation.

Immigration agents generally are not allowed to enter a setting’s private areas.

Until recently, the federal government had a general policy of not conducting immigration enforcement activities in and around “protected” areas such as churches, health care facilities, service centers, and schools. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) terminated that policy on January 21, 2025; as a result, these types of settings currently receive no special protection against immigration enforcement.[1]

That does NOT mean, however, that immigration agents can act unrestricted. One important limitation on their power comes from the U.S. Constitution—specifically, the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

Under these protections, an immigration agent can enter only a setting’s “public” areas and is not allowed to enter “private” areas (unless, as discussed below, they have permission from the service provider, or an appropriate warrant, or are acting in an emergency situation). Private areas are spaces in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. For example, an older resident’s room in an assisted living facility would be private, as would a clinic’s examination room. On the other hand, waiting rooms and lobbies generally would be considered public.

To avoid confusion, a service provider may wish to clearly designate certain areas as “private.” This could be done by posting signs and also by closing or adding doors, or by adding screening procedures. For example, an otherwise public lobby might be considered private if a person can enter only with proof of an appointment. Similarly, certain communal settings—such as congregate meal halls or activity rooms at adult day centers—would typically be considered public unless there are markings and entry requirements to indicate these areas are private.

Management may also wish to consider what can be seen or heard: in general, information is considered public if it can be seen or heard from a public place. To maintain the privacy of older adult clients, computer screens should be turned away from public areas, and the person’s records similarly should be visible only to staff. Staff should always close the door when talking to or about a patient, and should ensure that conversations concerning an older adult client cannot be overheard from the lobby, cafeteria, or any other public areas.

Immigration agents can enter private areas if they have permission from the service provider, or an appropriate warrant, or are acting in an emergency situation.

Immigration agents can enter a setting’s private areas if they have consent from the service provider. As discussed in more detail below, operators can address this situation in advance by developing clear policies on which employees have authority to grant such consent. Ideally, most employees would NOT have authority, and instead would refer agents to the service provider’s designated employee decision-maker(s).

Immigration agents also can enter private areas with an appropriate warrant —specifically, a judicial warrant issued by a federal court that clearly grants the agent authority to enter a particular area of the setting. Importantly, warrants that do not meet these criteria, such as an administrative warrant issued by DHS, do not give immigration agents authority to enter private spaces. See section 4 immediately below for further discussion of warrants.

Finally, immigration agents also can enter private areas in emergency situations. As a practical matter, the existence of an emergency requiring immediate entry to a private area is determined by agents on a case-by-case basis. If an agent enters a private area under a claim of emergency, employees can document what is occurring but should not physically interfere.

A federal court warrant can give an agent authority to enter a private area.

As mentioned above, a federal court warrant can authorize an agent’s entry into a private area, but an administrative warrant cannot. To identify a federal court warrant, first look at the top of the first page. The heading above the case name will refer to a United States District Court and include the name of the relevant federal court. For example, a federal court warrant issued for use in Des Moines, Iowa, would include on the first page the heading of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA (the wording could differ slightly). The warrant is signed by a District Court Judge or a Magistrate Judge. The warrant must specifically identify the area in which agents are allowed to enter; agents do not have authority to enter areas that have not been adequately specified. In general, a warrant is effective for up to 14 days after it is issued.[2]

By contrast, an administrative warrant includes the name and seal of a federal agency (likely DHS) and is signed by an immigration officer or immigration judge. Administrative warrants may grant authority to arrest a specified person but cannot authorize entry into a private space.

Privacy laws generally prohibit release of an individual client’s records.

Various privacy laws generally prohibit service providers from releasing an older adult’s or other patient’s records to immigration agents (or any other third party). Health records are protected under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)—the federal law that sets the standards for protecting sensitive patient health information—and usually cannot be disclosed without the patient’s explicit consent. Other federal and state laws establish similar protections for individual records in the various settings in which an older adult or a person with disabilities receives residential and/or social services. In short, the information must be kept private unless the older adult gives permission for the information to be shared.

Court orders can create an exception to these general rules. Just as a judicial warrant can allow an agent to enter an otherwise private space, a judicial warrant or subpoena may also authorize agents to review individual records. The language of the warrant or subpoena is crucial: agents only have the authority specifically granted in the document by the judge.

In general, neither staff nor clients are required to respond to questions from immigration agents.

Under the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment, no person can be forced to be a witness against themselves. In an immigration raid, this Fifth Amendment protection means staff and the older adult clients cannot be forced to respond to a question from an immigration agent or other law enforcement agent. Some states’ laws, however, can require a person to provide at least their name when requested by law enforcement, but this generally applies only when the agent has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime.[3]

As discussed in more detail in section 8 below, a service provider can develop clear policies on who on staff should speak with immigration agents, and what they should say. The role for most employees will likely be to direct agents to the person(s) in charge.

Staff should not physically interfere with immigration raids.

As discussed in this fact sheet, staff members are not necessarily required to comply with immigration officers’ requests for information or access. Importantly, however, staff members are not allowed to interfere with immigration raids. They should not physically interfere with agents, or affirmatively conceal persons from the agents. Instead, they can ask for a warrant and document everything that the agents do.

Service providers can develop policies to prepare for and respond appropriately to an immigration raid.

A service provider can develop policies to address many of the issues discussed above. One important issue is the distinction between private and public areas. Service providers can designate and clearly mark public areas (such as lobbies and waiting rooms) and private areas (such as examination rooms and resident rooms). As discussed above, an otherwise “public” room such as a waiting room could potentially be considered private if access were limited through a screening process. 

Also, management should designate specific staff members to communicate with any immigration agents, and direct other staff members to refer agents to those designated persons. Management also would train designated persons on many of the issues raised in this fact sheet, including instructions on reviewing warrants and subpoenas, responding to agents’ requests to enter areas or review records, documenting everything that the immigration officers do, and communicating to staff and clients during a raid. These trainings can also be made available to all staff members, and the policies posted publicly.

Finally, service providers should consider whether and how to request information regarding a client’s immigration status, and how to record any information they collect. In some cases, immigration status information may be relevant to a person’s eligibility for services, or some provision of federal or state law may require the service provider to determine a client’s immigration status. Florida and Texas, for example, require hospitals to inquire into patients’ immigration status.[4]

In other cases, however, service providers have no such obligation. When a provider must determine a recipient’s immigration status, it might find it appropriate to maintain that information separate from the personal or clinical records used most frequently by staff members.

Service providers and individuals should take federal policies and state laws into account, as relevant.

As mentioned in the introduction, this fact sheet is a general discussion of relevant law and is not legal advice. Service providers and individuals should consult with a lawyer to weigh their own situation and options.

Organizations that receive any type of federal funding should be aware of the President’s executive order of February 19, 2025. Among other things, this order calls on each federal agency to “ensure, consistent with applicable law, that Federal payments to States and localities do not, by design or effect, facilitate the subsidization or promotion of illegal immigration, or abet so-called ‘sanctuary’ policies that seek to shield illegal aliens from deportation.”[5]

Also, service providers and individuals should consider relevant laws from their own states. This fact sheet has mentioned several potential types of relevant state laws, but other types of state laws might also be relevant.

These protections extend to the staff at the health facilities and social services centers as well.

The essential services that older adults rely on at healthcare facilities and social services centers require an intricate network of staff. Many of the staff in these settings may themselves be immigrants, have connections to immigrant communities, or otherwise be the subject of immigration enforcement.[6] The Fourth Amendment and Fifth Amendment protections as well as the warrant requirements articulated in this document extend to the staff as well. For more details about the rights of workers, please see What to Do if Immigration Comes to Your Work Place.

Resources

Endnotes

  1. Department of Homeland Security, Statement from DHS Spokesperson on Directives Expanding Law Enforcement And Ending the Abuse of Humanitarian Parole (January 21, 2025).↑

  2. F. R. Crim. Proc. 41(e)(2)(A)(i). ↑

  3. See, e.g., Ala. Code § 15-5-30 (must state name if agent has suspicion of felony); Colo. Stat. § 16-3-103 (reasonable suspicion of committing crime). ↑

  4. Florida law requires hospitals that accept Medicaid to inquire into a patient’s immigration status, but the “inquiry must be followed by a statement that the response will not affect patient care or result in a report of the patient’s immigration status to immigration authorities.” Fla. Stat. § 395.3027. In Texas, an executive order similarly requires hospitals to collect information regarding patients “who are not lawfully present in the United States,” and to tell patients that their response “will not affect patient care.” Tex. Executive Order GA 46, Relating to the Collection of Information by the Health and Human Services Commission to Assess Costs to the Texas Public Hospital System Imposed by the Federal Government’s Open-Border Policies (Aug. 8, 2024). ↑

  5. Executive Order #14218, Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders, 90 Fed. Reg. 10,581 (Feb. 19, 2025). ↑

  6. Justice in Aging, Understanding the Connections Between Immigration and Older Adults (April 7, 2025). ↑