Can You Refuse Service to ICE Agents? The Third Amendment Explained

By Joe | About the Author | Published: October 28, 2025 | Last Updated: October 29, 2025

Your rights as a business owner, homeowner, and citizen—and why these "forgotten" laws matter now

When most people think about the Bill of Rights, they remember the big ones: freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, protection against unreasonable searches. But wedged between the Second and Fourth Amendments sits what legal scholars often call the "forgotten amendment"—the Third Amendment's prohibition on quartering soldiers in private homes.

It's rarely discussed. It's almost never litigated. And right now, as federal troops deploy to Portland, Chicago, and Los Angeles, it's more relevant than it's been in centuries.

More importantly: it directly affects your rights as a business owner, homeowner, and citizen facing federal agents conducting immigration enforcement operations.

The Third Amendment: What It Says

Here's the full text of the Third Amendment to the United States Constitution:

"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

Written in 1789, this amendment was a direct response to British troops forcing colonists to house soldiers in their homes and businesses. But its protection extends far beyond literal overnight stays—it establishes the fundamental principle that military force should not occupy civilian spaces or be used to enforce domestic law.

What This Means for You and Your Business

This isn't ancient history or abstract legal theory. These protections directly affect you as a business owner, homeowner, or citizen. Here's what you need to know in plain language:

For Individuals and Homeowners

Your home is your castle. The Third Amendment means:

• No soldier or National Guard member can demand to stay in your home
• No federal agent can commandeer your residence as a base of operations
• You have absolute authority to refuse military personnel entry to your private residence

This isn't just about literal overnight stays. The principle extends to:

• Using your property for staging operations
• Demanding access to survey locations or set up equipment
• Requiring you to provide supplies, food, or facilities to troops

Bottom line: If soldiers or federal agents knock on your door demanding to use your home for any purpose, you can refuse. They need your explicit consent or a valid judicial warrant signed by a judge—not just federal paperwork.

For Small Business Owners

If you own a restaurant, café, shop, service business, or any commercial property, here's what these laws mean for you:

Public vs. Private Areas Matter:

• Public areas (dining rooms, retail floors, lobbies, parking lots): Federal agents and soldiers can enter these just like any other customer
• Private areas (back offices, storage rooms, employee break rooms, kitchens): You can refuse entry without a judicial warrant

Important: ICE agents often carry administrative warrants (Forms I-200 or I-205). These are not judicial warrants. They're internal DHS paperwork. You are not required to grant access to private areas based on these forms alone.

A judicial warrant is signed by a federal judge or magistrate. If agents have one of these, it may authorize them to search private business areas.

Your Rights When Federal Agents Show Up

You can:

• Ask to see credentials and any warrants
• Request to speak with your attorney before granting access
• Refuse entry to private/non-public areas without a judicial warrant
• Tell employees they can choose whether to speak with agents (though you cannot direct them not to cooperate)
• Document the interaction (photos, video, written notes)

You cannot:

• Physically obstruct or interfere with agents (this can be a federal crime)
• Lie to federal agents
• Refuse to comply with a valid judicial warrant

Can You Refuse Service to ICE Agents and Soldiers?

This is one of the most asked questions by business owners right now, especially those running restaurants, cafés, and other service businesses. The short answer: Yes, in most cases.

The Legal Basis

Under federal law, private businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone—except when that refusal discriminates against a protected class. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on:

• Race
• Color
• Religion
• Sex
• National origin

The Americans with Disabilities Act adds disability to this list.

Crucially: Federal agents, ICE officers, soldiers, and government employees are not a protected class under federal anti-discrimination law. Their occupation or employer status doesn't give them special protections as customers.

What This Means in Practice

You CAN refuse:

• To serve ICE agents or soldiers in your restaurant
• To allow them to use your restroom
• To provide them coffee, food, or any other service
• Service for any reason that's not based on a protected characteristic

You CAN'T refuse:

• Based on their race, religion, sex, national origin, or disability
• To comply with a valid judicial warrant
• In ways that would constitute obstruction of federal officers performing their duties

The Bathroom Question

If an ICE agent or soldier in uniform demands to use your business's restroom, you have the legal right to refuse. Your restroom is your private property (even if your dining room is open to the public). You set the rules for who can use your facilities.

However, be strategic:

• Apply your policy consistently to everyone, not just agents
• Consider posting a clear policy ("Restrooms for paying customers only" or "Restrooms for staff use only")
• Document if agents become aggressive or threatening
• Don't physically block them—just verbally refuse and call your attorney if they insist

The Practical Reality

While you have the legal right to refuse service, consider:

• Safety: Will refusing escalate the situation? Is your staff safe?
• Community: How does your decision align with your values and community?
• Documentation: Always document these interactions in case of retaliation
• Legal support: Have a lawyer's number ready if you plan to refuse service regularly

Examples From the Field

During ICE operations in 2018-2019, several businesses publicly announced they would not serve ICE agents:

• A San Francisco restaurant posted a sign reading "No service for ICE agents"
• Multiple Portland cafés refused service to federal agents during protests
• Chicago restaurants participated in "sanctuary restaurant" networks

None faced successful legal challenges based on their refusal, though some faced public backlash and online harassment.

Your Choice, Your Values

Ultimately, deciding whether to serve federal agents conducting operations you find unjust is a moral choice, not just a legal one. The law protects your right to make that choice.

If you choose to refuse service:

• Be clear and calm
• Don't make it about protected characteristics
• Document everything
• Have legal support ready
• Prepare for potential consequences (both legal and social)

If you choose to serve everyone regardless of occupation:

• That's also your right
• You can still refuse entry to private areas without a warrant
• You can still advocate politically while serving all customers

The key takeaway: You have more power than you think. Federal agents and soldiers don't have special rights to demand your business, your bathroom, or your cooperation beyond what the law explicitly requires.

Risks of Refusing Service to Federal Agents

While you have the legal right to refuse service, be aware of potential consequences. This is a legal right, but it's not without social and professional risks.

Potential Risks

Legal and Professional:

• Retaliation: Increased scrutiny, audits, or investigations of your business
• False claims: Accusations of "obstructing justice" (generally unfounded but stressful and expensive to defend)
• Permit and licensing issues: Sudden "compliance checks" or regulatory attention

Social and Personal:

• Doxxing or harassment: From supporters of enforcement actions, online mobs, or organized campaigns
• Loss of customers: Some patrons may disagree with your stance and boycott your business
• Media attention: Wanted or unwanted publicity that could amplify harassment
• Employee safety: Staff may face confrontation or intimidation

Risk Mitigation Strategies

If you choose to refuse service to federal agents, protect yourself and your business:

Documentation:

• Install security cameras covering entrances and public areas
• Train staff to document interactions (written notes, photos where legal)
• Keep detailed records of any encounters with federal agents
• Save all communications, threats, or intimidation attempts

Legal Preparation:

• Have a lawyer's contact on speed dial (National Lawyers Guild, ACLU, local immigration attorneys)
• Know your local bail fund contact in case of arrest
• Post clear signage about your policies (makes it harder to claim discrimination)
• Understand your business insurance coverage for legal defense

Community Support:

• Build relationships with other sanctuary businesses before you need them
• Connect with local activist networks and mutual aid groups
• Inform trusted community members of your policy
• Join or form business owner defense networks

Critical Boundaries:

• Do NOT physically obstruct or interfere with agents—this WILL get you arrested
• Do NOT lie to federal agents—politely decline to answer instead
• Do NOT touch or handle any documents agents present—photograph them instead
• Train staff on what they can and cannot do legally

Making the Decision

Refusing service is a legal right, but it's also a form of public activism with real consequences. Before taking a public stand:

1. Assess your risk tolerance: Can you afford legal fees? Lost business? Media attention?
2. Consider your staff: Are they on board? Will they be safe?
3. Evaluate your community: Will you have support or face backlash?
4. Plan for escalation: What if agents return? What if you're targeted?
5. Consider quiet resistance: You can support sanctuary efforts without public confrontation

Remember: You can support immigrant communities, know your rights, refuse entry to private areas, and organize politically—all without the risks of high-profile service refusal. Choose the level of resistance that's sustainable for you and your business.

What This Means for Resistance

The Third Amendment isn't the only law protecting you from military occupation. The Posse Comitatus Act (1878)—which we'll explore in detail below—prevents federal troops from being used for domestic law enforcement. Together, these laws share a foundational principle: military force is not for controlling the civilian population.

When the British quartered troops in colonial homes, it wasn't about housing logistics—it was about intimidation, control, and enforcing an unpopular regime. When federal forces deploy to Portland, Chicago, and LA today, the stated reason is "protecting federal property." But the actual effect is militarizing immigration enforcement and intimidating communities.

The courts are pushing back. Judges in California, Oregon, and Illinois have recognized that these deployments violate fundamental legal limits on military power in a democracy.

But court orders don't enforce themselves. What happens next depends on:

• Community organizing: Know Your Rights training, community alerts (like Chicago's whistle system), witness networks
• Local resistance: Sanctuary cities refusing cooperation, governors fighting federalization
• Public pressure: Making these deployments politically costly
• Legal battles: Supporting organizations filing lawsuits to enforce constitutional limits

A Note on Tactics: The Guardrails Matter

Some might ask: why does it matter whether it's National Guard troops or ICE agents conducting raids? Either way, communities are being targeted.

It matters because the legal guardrails exist for a reason. Laws like Posse Comitatus and the Third Amendment create friction between executive power and military force. They require justification, judicial review, and democratic accountability.

When presidents try to bypass these limits—federalizing the Guard, deploying active-duty military, occupying cities—it's not just a legal technicality. It's a warning sign of authoritarian escalation.

Every time a court blocks these deployments, it reaffirms that the military answers to the Constitution, not to any single person's orders. That principle, established in response to King George III's abuses, remains vital today.

Why These Rights Exist: The Historical Context

Now that you know your rights, here's why the Founders fought to protect them.

Why the Founders Cared About Where Soldiers Sleep

To understand the Third Amendment, you need to understand what it felt like to live in colonial America under British occupation.

In 1765, Parliament passed the first Quartering Act, requiring the American colonies to provide food and lodging to British troops. Local barracks weren't enough, so colonial authorities had to house soldiers in alehouses, inns, and livery stables. After the Boston Tea Party in 1773, Britain passed the Quartering Act of 1774—one of the "Intolerable Acts" that pushed the colonies toward revolution—which authorized troops to be housed "wherever necessary."

Imagine armed soldiers, loyal to a distant king, eating your food, occupying your community spaces, and enforcing laws you had no say in creating. The quartering of troops wasn't just an inconvenience—it was a tool of occupation and intimidation.

When Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence, forced quartering made the list of grievances against King George III. When James Madison drafted the Bill of Rights in 1789, preventing this abuse became the Third Amendment.

The Amendment That Never Sleeps

The Third Amendment has been litigated only a handful of times in U.S. history. The most significant case, Engblom v. Carey (1982), established three crucial principles:

1. National Guard troops count as "soldiers" for Third Amendment purposes
2. The amendment applies to state governments, not just the federal government
3. The Third Amendment protects fundamental privacy rights from military intrusion

In Engblom, corrections officers in New York were evicted from staff housing during a strike, and National Guard troops were moved into their rooms. The court ruled this could violate the Third Amendment—even though the housing was state-owned.

The case established that the Third Amendment isn't just about physical homes. It's about the fundamental principle that military force should not be used to occupy civilian spaces or enforce domestic law.

The Posse Comitatus Act: The Third Amendment's Legal Cousin

While the Third Amendment prevents soldiers from being quartered in homes, the Posse Comitatus Act (1878) prevents federal troops from being used for domestic law enforcement—except when expressly authorized by Congress or the Constitution.

Here's where it gets complicated with the National Guard:

• State Active Duty: When governors deploy their own Guard, Posse Comitatus doesn't apply
• Title 32 (Hybrid): Guard troops on federal funding but state command—Posse Comitatus still doesn't apply
• Title 10 (Federalized): When the president federalizes the Guard, they become federal troops, and Posse Comitatus fully applies

This distinction matters enormously in Portland, Chicago, and Los Angeles right now.

The Current Battle: Portland, Chicago, and Los Angeles

These aren't abstract legal principles. Right now, courts are blocking illegal military deployments in three major cities.

Portland: Over 200 Troops in Limbo

Since June 2025, protesters have gathered outside Portland's ICE facility, demonstrating against the administration's immigration policies. In response, President Trump has repeatedly attempted to federalize the Oregon National Guard and deploy them to Portland.

The current situation: Over 200 members of the Oregon National Guard are waiting under federal control at Camp Rilea in Warrenton, as courts battle over whether their deployment is legal.

The case: State of Oregon and City of Portland v. Trump, Case No. 3:25-cv-01756-IM (D. Or.). U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut granted a temporary restraining order on October 4, 2025, blocking deployment through October 17. The 9th Circuit overturned that block, then stayed its own ruling. A three-day trial began October 29 to determine whether the deployment violates federal law.

View court documents

Why it matters: When the National Guard is federalized, they become federal troops subject to Posse Comitatus restrictions. Using them for domestic law enforcement—including protecting federal facilities from protesters exercising their First Amendment rights—may be illegal.

Chicago: Operation Midway Blitz

In September 2025, the Trump administration announced "Operation Midway Blitz," deploying at least 300 Illinois National Guard troops, 200 Texas National Guard troops, and 14 California National Guard troops to Chicago for ICE operations.

The case: State of Illinois and City of Chicago v. Trump, Case No. 1:25-cv-12174 (N.D. Ill.), filed October 6, 2025. U.S. District Judge April Perry issued a temporary restraining order on October 9, 2025, blocking "the federalization and deployment" of National Guard troops. The 7th Circuit upheld the order (Appeal No. 25-2798). As of October 22, the restraining order remains in effect pending Supreme Court review.

View complaint (PDF)

The current situation: The National Guard remains at a facility near Joliet but is barred from doing anything except training on federal land. Meanwhile, ICE strike teams have escalated raids across Chicago's North Side—with federal agents, not soldiers.

Illinois Governor JB Pritzker called it an "invasion." Chicago's mayor, a former union organizer, is fighting it in court.

Why it matters: The court recognized that federalizing the Guard to conduct law enforcement operations crosses a constitutional line. The administration's response? Send ICE agents instead—not technically soldiers, not technically barred by Posse Comitatus, but functionally the same occupation.

Los Angeles: A Ruling for the History Books

In June 2025, ICE raids sparked mass protests in Los Angeles. President Trump deployed over 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 active-duty Marines to "protect federal property."

The case: Newsom v. Trump, Case No. 3:25-cv-04870-CRB (N.D. Cal.). After a three-day bench trial, U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer issued a 52-page opinion on September 2, 2025, ruling the military deployment illegal and a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. The court permanently enjoined the Trump administration from engaging in similar activity in California in the future.

Read the opinion on Justia

Judge Breyer wrote: "There was no rebellion, nor was civilian law enforcement unable to respond to the protests and enforce the law." He found the rationale for deployment "contrived."

Why it matters: This is a landmark ruling. A federal court explicitly held that deploying military forces in response to protests against immigration enforcement is illegal. The exceptions to Posse Comitatus—rebellion, insurrection, inability of civilian law enforcement to function—didn't exist.

The Amendment That Still Fights

The Third Amendment seems quaint—a relic of powdered wigs and muskets. But its core insight remains radical: your home, your community, your daily life should be free from military occupation.

In 1774, Bostonians resisted British troops quartered in their city. In 1982, corrections officers sued when National Guard troops took their housing. In 2025, Portlanders, Chicagoans, and Angelenos are fighting federal troop deployments in their streets.

The amendment may be forgotten, but the fight it represents never stopped.

"No soldiers shall be quartered..." isn't just about bedrooms. It's about whether we live under military rule or democratic governance. It's about whether the armed forces exist to defend the Constitution or to enforce one person's political agenda.

As federal troops wait in camps outside our cities, as judges rule deployments illegal, as communities organize to protect their neighbors—the Third Amendment and its companion laws aren't forgotten.

They're battle-tested. And they're holding the line.

---

What You Can Do

For Everyone:

• Know your rights: Organizations like the ACLU, National Immigration Law Center, and local legal aid groups offer Know Your Rights resources
• Support legal challenges: Donate to organizations filing lawsuits challenging illegal deployments
• Join community defense networks: Witness programs, rapid response teams, community alert systems
• Contact your representatives: Demand they oppose illegal military deployments and defend Posse Comitatus
• Show up: Join peaceful protests, attend city council meetings, make your opposition known

For Business Owners:

• Post your policy: Make clear whether you serve federal agents conducting enforcement operations
• Know the difference: Administrative warrants vs. judicial warrants—only judicial warrants can compel access to private areas
• Have legal support ready: Keep your lawyer's contact information accessible
• Connect with other businesses: Join or form sanctuary business networks in your community
• Document everything: Keep records of any interactions with federal agents

For Legal Resources:

• ACLU: www.aclu.org
• National Immigration Law Center: www.nilc.org
• National Lawyers Guild: Local chapters provide legal observers and Know Your Rights training

---

The Founders gave us the Third Amendment because they knew what military occupation looks like. Let's prove we remember.

---

For more resources on community organizing and resistance, visit rogueresistance.org

---

Published: October 28, 2025 Last Updated: October 28, 2025

---

Further Reading

• The Text of the Third Amendment
• Engblom v. Carey Case Summary
• Posse Comitatus Act Explained - Brennan Center
• Know Your Rights - NILC Immigration Guide
• Business Owner Rights - Workplace Immigration Enforcement

---

Final Reminder: This is educational content, not legal advice. If you're facing immigration enforcement, contact an attorney immediately. National Lawyers Guild legal hotlines by city: nlg.org/chapters