Can a city police department legally refuse ICE detainer requests in 2025?
Executive summary
Yes — in 2025 a city police department can legally refuse ICE civil detainer requests in many circumstances: detainers are voluntary administrative requests (not judicial warrants), several court rulings and a nationwide settlement severely limited ICE’s ability to compel local holds, and state or local laws (like Boston’s Trust Act) can bar honoring detainers absent a criminal warrant [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. Legal character of ICE detainers — voluntary administrative requests, not warrants
ICE detainers typically consist of administrative forms asking local jails or police to hold an individual up to 48 additional hours so federal agents can assume custody, but they are not judicial warrants and historically carried no neutral, probable-cause review, which is why many jurisdictions treat them as voluntary and nonbinding [1] [3] [5].
2. Courts and settlements have narrowed ICE’s reach over local holds
Judicial decisions finding that acting on warrantless detainers violated the Fourth Amendment, and the 2025 Gonzalez v. ICE settlement that prevents ICE’s PERC from issuing detainer forms without establishing a neutral review process, together restrict ICE’s authority to ask local agencies to continue detention; starting March 4, 2025 PERC was limited to Requests for Notification rather than requests to continue detention until a neutral process exists [2] [3].
3. State and local laws can lawfully forbid honoring detainers
Local statutes like Boston’s Trust Act and state-level rules have been used to prohibit police from detaining people solely on ICE detainer requests; state courts and attorneys general have also ruled or advised that local law enforcement is not legally required to honor civil detainers because they are administrative, not judicial, instruments — creating a legal basis for cities to refuse cooperation [4] [1] [6].
4. Real-world practice: Boston as a test case in 2025
Boston’s police commissioner reported receiving dozens of civil detainer requests in 2025 but that the department did not take action on any to hold people beyond release eligibility, citing city law that bars continued detention absent a criminal warrant, and flagged procedural problems such as ICE failing to use the department’s designated communication channels for detainers [4] [7].
5. The federal counterargument and public-safety framing
ICE and some federal officials argue that refusing to honor detainers undermines public safety and national security by preventing the agency from taking custody of noncitizens with criminal histories, and ICE has publicly disputed local tallies of ignored detainers in places like Boston [7] [8]. That political and security framing drives litigation and federal pressure on jurisdictions that refuse cooperation.
6. Practical limits and risk points for local agencies
Refusing civil detainers is legally supportable in many jurisdictions, but risks and complications remain: divergent counting and notice practices between ICE and local agencies create disputes over whether detainers were properly served, and the nationwide settlement only restricts PERC forms absent a neutral process — individual ICE field offices and warrants remain operative, and federal litigation and statutory changes can shift the balance [7] [3] [2].
7. Bottom line — legally permissible but context-dependent
A city police department can legally refuse to honor ICE civil detainers in 2025 where state or local law, judicial rulings, and the Gonzalez settlement apply, and because detainers are administrative requests rather than warrants; however, the authority is not absolute — factual details (proper service, existence of an ICE arrest warrant), differing state laws, and federal pushback or litigation can change outcomes in specific cases [1] [3] [2] [6].