ICE at the Door: How to Prepare for and Respond to a Visit

Quick Hits

• Employers can create a written protocol for responding to agents from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which includes ICE.
• Employers can take steps to understand their rights and train workers to know their rights and responsibilities in the event of an ICE visit.
• A judicial warrant is required for ICE to enter private areas of a workplace.
• Employers may wish to review leave of absence policies and contingency planning for workforce interruptions, as some workers may miss work due to fear of being detained or deported.
• Employers may wish to evaluate workplace violence risks and address hazards.

Since January 2025, federal agency actions reflect an expanded, nationwide approach to worksite compliance and immigration enforcement. ICE has intensified its worksite enforcement, with a particular emphasis on restaurants, car washes, construction sites, manufacturing facilities, food processing plants, farms, retail establishments, and commercial warehouses. ICE has conducted large-scale enforcement actions at specific facilities, including a car battery plant in Georgia and a seafood distribution depot in New Jersey. More recently, ICE has focused targeted actions in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area.

Many states and cities designated as “sanctuary” jurisdictions, which limit cooperation with ICE, have likewise been focal points of enhanced enforcement and have seen significant protest activity in response.

Employers can proactively audit their compliance and site-visit protocols, train HR and frontline managers, and coordinate with counsel to mitigate heightened nationwide enforcement risks, and navigate employment-law issues when employees decline to report to work due to nearby protests or civil unrest, including safety accommodations, pay and leave implications, and protected activity considerations.

Preparing for Potential ICE Worksite Encounters

Employers can take proactive steps to mitigate legal and operational risks before any potential ICE visit. A structured internal immigration compliance audit, for example, helps ensure that Forms I-9 and related records are accurate, complete, and readily accessible.

Employers often adopt written protocols that identify decision-makers, designate trained personnel to interact with ICE agents, and set out procedures for preserving documents and managing communications. Tabletop exercises and live drills are useful for testing plans, clarifying roles, and maintaining readiness. Supervisors and frontline personnel can receive practical guidance on who may grant access to private areas, how to route inquiries to designated leads, and the basic rights and obligations that apply during worksite encounters.

ICE may appear at a workplace without advance notice as part of an investigation into potential violations, which can include immigration-related offenses, unlawful employment, human trafficking, document fraud, cybercrime, identity theft, and controlled-substance offenses. Agents may be accompanied by local law enforcement. ICE attire may bear the words “Police” or “Federal Agent,” and ICE officers may be in plainclothes or tactical gear and be armed. Employers should not assume that an agent’s appearance or attire alone determines the scope of lawful authority. That scope depends on the legal process the agents present and the consent provided.

The type of warrant—or absence of one—critically affects what ICE may lawfully do on-site. An administrative warrant from DHS authorizes ICE to enter public areas and arrest a named individual based on suspected violations of immigration laws. By contrast, a judicial warrant—issued and signed by a judge—may authorize entry into both public and private areas and may permit a search for and seizure of evidence described in the warrant.

Proper training and up-to-date policies on interacting with law enforcement and government agents can help employers navigate these visits.

Posture During an ICE Encounter

If ICE arrives, the overarching goals are to maintain safety, ensure legal compliance, and preserve the organization’s rights. Ideally, managers will remain calm, instruct employees to continue normal operations unless and until directed otherwise by the designated response lead, and avoid actions that could be perceived as evasive or obstructive. The designated lead should promptly contact immigration counsel and request a review of any legal documents presented by ICE. This will aid in helping determine how the employer must interact with the ICE agents. It is useful to obtain the names and badge numbers of the ICE agents.

Generally, employers and employees must not hide workers, destroy or alter documents, provide false information, or otherwise obstruct an investigation. An observer can monitor the agents’ activities and note any interactions that may raise concerns. If a worker is taken into custody, the employer can assign a point person to contact the worker’s emergency contact.

When the on-site activity concludes, the employer will likely want to promptly document a factual account of the encounter while memories are fresh. The organization is entitled to an itemized receipt of any property, records, or devices removed by ICE. Counsel can assess next steps, including any challenges to the scope of the search or seizure, preservation of privileged and confidential information, and coordination regarding any subsequent notices of inspection, subpoenas, or follow-up interviews.

Absences Due to Enforcement-Related Activity

Some employers have reported a growing number of employee absences tied to fear of becoming involved in enforcement-related encounters or a family member’s being detained or deported. In these circumstances, employers may wish to reiterate their attendance policies and carefully document reasons for absences and actions taken.

Employers can allow a worker to use paid sick days, personal days, or unpaid time off when the worker is absent. Employers are not obligated to provide leave indefinitely. To avoid discrimination lawsuits, employers may wish to ensure that all attendance policies are consistently and fairly enforced.

Keep in mind any state laws that may be impacted, such as sick and safe time or paid leave requirements. For example, while being “scared” may not qualify for medical leave, documented anxiety may result in protected time off under a state-paid leave program.

Responding to Protest Activity and Employee Walkouts

Across the country, there have been numerous protests against ICE activity in recent months. In some cases, employees have missed work to participate in or organize protests with coworkers.

Some forms of collective action, including work stoppages, are protected under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), regardless of whether the workers are unionized. These protections may apply when employees collaborate with coworkers over work conditions or bring complaints about the workplace to supervisors. The NLRA does not protect employee actions to protest broad-based government policies unrelated to workplace matters.

Employers may wish to train managers not to threaten to discipline workers for legally protected concerted activity.

Additionally, employers may want to train managers to address workplace violence hazards. Workplace violence could include threats, assaults, and attacks against employees by customers, clients, or others. Evaluating and addressing hazards can include implementing safety procedures, such as adjusting working hours to minimize workers’ travel to and from work during darkness or during hours of heightened risk, adding cameras, and providing de-escalation training, personal alarms, or other processes that enhance and support employee security.

Ogletree Deakins will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Immigration, Leaves of Absence, Minnesota, Workplace Safety and Health, and Workplace Violence Prevention blogs as additional information becomes available.

On February 12, 2026, at 2 p.m. EST, Ogletree Deakins will present a webinar entitled “Immigration Enforcement Actions: Strategies and Safeguards for the Workplace” with attorneys Corie J. Anderson, Marissa E. Cwik, Thomas M. Stanek, and Karen F. Tynan. Register here to attend.

This article and more information on how the Trump administration’s actions impact employers can be found on Ogletree Deakins’ Administration Resource Hub.

Corie J. Anderson is a shareholder in Ogletree Deakins’ Minneapolis office who routinely handles Minnesota advice issues, including government investigations, paid leave questions, and sick and safe time use.

Marissa E. Cwik is a shareholder in Ogletree Deakins’ Denver office, partnering with employers to implement strategic workforce immigration solutions.

Leigh N. Ganchan is a shareholder in Ogletree Deakins’ Houston office who concentrates on immigration compliance, including responding to unannounced DHS/ICE visits.

Jason N. W. Plowman is a shareholder in Ogletree Deakins’ Minneapolis office, handling nationwide complex wage-and-hour litigation and time-off advice.

Karen F. Tynan is a shareholder in Ogletree Deakins’ Sacramento office, chair of the firm’s Workplace Safety and Health Practice Group, and co-chair of the firm’s Workplace Violence Prevention Practice Group.

This article was co-authored by Leah J. Shepherd, who is a writer in Ogletree Deakins’ Washington, D.C., office.

Follow and Subscribe

LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts