Immigration enforcement is no longer a remote or theoretical risk for construction employers. ICE is conducting active site visits nationwide – detaining workers, halting projects, and triggering cascading contractual and financial consequences. Our latest construction law alert outlines: 1) why the risk has escalated; 2) what contractors should do before, during and after an ICE visit; and 3) the legal limits on ICE authority – now being litigated – that could reshape enforcement nationwide.
Why This Matters Now
Construction has emerged as a primary focus of federal immigration enforcement. Recent site visits have resulted in entire crews being removed, including workers with lawful status, leading to stalled projects, loan defaults, supply‑chain collapse and workforce attrition. Industry groups report widespread disruption, and pending federal litigation directly challenges the legality of current enforcement tactics at construction jobsites.
This is a business‑risk issue, not a compliance abstraction or a subcontractor problem. Every active jobsite is exposed.
What Contractors and Employers Can Do To Prepare
Please note that none of the actions below should be taken without consultation with legal counsel.
Before Any Enforcement Action
Preparation is the single most important risk‑reduction step. Contractors who have planned for their response in advance, and trained their site supervisors, are in a much better position than those who improvise.
- Designate a site enforcement lead for each project. One trained person interacts with agents; everyone else stays out of the encounter.
- Retain experienced immigration counsel and ensure the site lead has counsel’s contact information readily available.
- Physically secure and post jobsites (e.g., fencing, “No Trespassing” signage). This is legally significant in assessing whether a site is “non‑public.”
- With counsel only, conduct an I‑9 audit. An audit conducted through counsel may be protected by attorney-client privilege.
- Review subcontract agreements for workforce compliance representations and indemnities.
- Confirm state‑specific obligations. Contractor verification and reporting duties vary and may conflict across jurisdictions.
When Agents Arrive at Your Jobsite
When agents arrive, only your designated site representative should handle the interaction.
- Ask for a judicial warrant. Administrative immigration warrants do not authorize entry into non‑public work areas.
- Document everything immediately, including agencies present, agent names and badge numbers, areas entered and when, and worker interactions.
- Call counsel in real time.
- Remind workers they have a right to remain silent but may choose to produce REAL ID-compliant driver’s licenses if detained (document who presented ID and when).
- Do not produce documents (I‑9s, payroll, HR files, subcontract lists) absent a subpoena or judicial warrant.
- Do not make statements about hiring practices or workforce composition.
- Preserve video footage from the encounter.
- Be aware of state law issues.
After an Enforcement Action
What happens in the 24 to 72 hours after an immigration site visit matters as much as the site visit itself.
- Do not terminate workers solely because of the site visit without legal review.
- Document operational and financial impacts immediately (delays, costs, disruptions).
- Notify lenders, bonding companies and insurers as required by contract.
- Assess lawfulness of the entry with counsel; unlawful entry can preserve claims and defenses.
The Legal Framework
Three enforcement practices now appearing on construction sites are at the center of active federal litigation.
1. Warrantless Entry Onto Non‑Public Construction Sites
Federal regulations and the Fourth Amendment prohibit immigration officers from entering non‑public areas of a business without a judicial warrant or valid consent. Courts have long held that commercial spaces closed to the public – including fenced and posted construction sites – are protected against warrantless entry. Fencing and signage are not cosmetic; they can determine whether entry was lawful.
ICE’s position that active construction sites are “open fields” is being challenged directly. (See Kidd v. Mayorkas, 734 F.Supp.3d 967 (C.D. Cal. 2024).) How federal courts resolve this question will have immediate nationwide implications for site access and enforcement protocol.
2. Detaining Workers Without Individualized Suspicion
Officers may not detain individuals to investigate immigration status based on ethnicity, industry, group association or proximity to others. Courts require specific, individualized facts supporting reasonable suspicion as to each person. General suspicion that undocumented workers may be present in the industry is not legally sufficient to detain everyone on site.
Pending cases allege that ICE has shifted toward preemptive, quota‑driven detentions at worksites, a theory that – if accepted – would significantly restrict mass jobsite roundups. (See Escobar Molina v. DHS, No. 25-CV-3417, 2025 WL 3465518 (D.D.C. Sep. 25, 2025).)
3. Continued Detention After Presentation of Lawful Identification
REAL ID-compliant driver’s licenses are issued only after proof of lawful status. Federal appellate courts have held that continued detention after officers receive such documentation raises serious Fourth Amendment concerns. (See Alcocer v. Mills, 800 F.App’x 860, 866(11th Cir. 2020).)
Litigation now pending challenges ICE practices of disregarding REAL IDs and continuing to hold workers anyway. Detention decisions do not end at initial contact, however – what officers learn during the encounter matters legally.
Do “Sanctuary Jurisdictions” Change the Analysis?
There is no settled legal definition of a “sanctuary jurisdiction.” Generally, sanctuary laws limit state and local involvement in civil immigration enforcement without a judicial warrant; they do not restrict ICE, shield private jobsites or prevent federal enforcement. Their impact is typically limited to arrest processing and information sharing, not site entry.
Sanctuary status does not reduce enforcement risk for employers. Most such laws do not regulate private businesses, though some jurisdictions impose employer‑specific limits. California is the key example: the Immigrant Worker Protection Act (AB 450) restricts employer consent to ICE access to non‑public areas and employee records without proper process and authorizes civil penalties.
Elsewhere, sanctuary laws usually constrain local law enforcement, not employers. Federal rules apply nationwide, but local ordinances may add targeted employer obligations, making local legal guidance advisable.
Litigation to Watch
A federal class action pending in Alabama (Venegas v. Homan, No. 1:25-CV-397 (S.D.Ala. Sep. 30, 2025)) challenges ICE construction‑site practices involving warrantless entry, suspicionless detention, and continued detention of citizens and lawful residents. The case seeks injunctive relief that could constrain ICE operations regionally and materially influence enforcement standards nationwide. Although the court found that Article III standing exists in connection with Venegas’s motion for preliminary injunction, it has not ruled on that motion as of the May 27, 2026, hearing. On that same date, however, the court denied Homan’s motion for a protective order. As of June 10, 2026, the court has not provided any updates regarding Homan’s motion to dismiss the placeholder Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) claims or the APA claims.
The Bottom Line
ICE enforcement at construction sites is active, disruptive and legally unsettled. It is not a border problem or a subcontractor problem – it is a business risk sitting on every active project in the country, and the legal rules around immigration enforcement are being settled right now in federal court. Contractors in the strongest position are those who:
- Prepare before agents arrive.
- Train site leadership.
- Keep I‑9 compliance in order.
- Understand that lawful workers – including U.S. citizens – have enforceable rights.
The law is being shaped in real time by facts created on jobsites every day. Advance planning and disciplined response protocols are no longer optional.
If you have questions about how federal site visits may affect your construction business, please contact Cory Mickels, Richard McDonald or Jay Ross, or your regular Lathrop GPM attorney.