What courts, lawsuits, or congressional investigations have examined ICE detentions or deportations of people claiming U.S. citizenship since 2020?
Executive summary
Since 2020 a patchwork of federal lawsuits, state actions and congressional probes have scrutinized ICE and CBP for detaining or deporting people who claim U.S. citizenship, with advocates and states suing over blanket deployments and wrongful detentions and with congressional Democrats demanding documents and hearings; independent legal groups such as the ACLU and immigrant-rights litigators have also litigated individual and class claims challenging ICE detainers and courthouse arrests [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. A major Senate subcommittee inquiry and a flurry of recent state lawsuits in 2025–2026 broadened the oversight landscape, even as courts wrestle with immunities and procedural bars that can limit victims’ remedies [6] [7].
1. Lawsuits by states and cities over mass deployments and citizen detentions
Democratic-led state and city lawsuits filed in federal court alleged that mass deployments of ICE and CBP agents — notably to Chicago and Minneapolis-area regions — exceeded federal authority and violated state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment while causing wrongful stops and detentions of people, including U.S. citizens; Illinois and Minnesota sought injunctions to limit civil immigration enforcement absent explicit congressional authorization [4] [3]. Those suits frame the issue as both constitutional and practical: alleging interference with state and local services and seeking judicial limits on tactics such as detention, use of force, and roving patrols [3] [4].
2. Civil-rights and FTCA-style lawsuits by individuals and advocates
Individual U.S. citizens and immigrant-advocacy organizations have pursued civil suits challenging unlawful ICE detainers, wrongful arrests at courthouses, and alleged physical abuses, often pressing Fourth Amendment and statutory claims; long-running releases from the ACLU catalog cases such as Gonzalez v. ICE, and immigrant-justice groups filed class-action litigation over courthouse arrests and fast-track deportations that plaintiffs say deprived people of due process [1] [2]. Plaintiffs face doctrinal hurdles: the Federal Tort Claims Act and qualified-immunity doctrines can limit recovery, and courts differ on whether those exceptions bar claims for discretionary enforcement decisions [7].
3. Congressional oversight, demands and subcommittee investigations
Members of Congress led bipartisan letters and demands for investigations after reporting surfaced of Americans — including children and vulnerable patients — being detained or deported, with House and Senate Democrats pushing for document production and hearings; Representative Dan Goldman and Senators including Elizabeth Warren, Alex Padilla and Mark Kelly formally demanded investigations into ICE’s detention of U.S. citizens in 2025 [5]. The Senate Homeland Security Committee subcommittee compiled an investigatory report by December 2025 documenting citizen detentions and highlighting high-risk practices, indicating sustained legislative scrutiny even where executive resistance has complicated access [6].
4. What courts have actually decided and the legal obstacles
Courts have been both a refuge and a bottleneck: plaintiffs have succeeded in bringing some challenges but face hurdles from doctrines like the FTCA’s discretionary-function exception and varying circuit tests for suing federal agents, and commentators note that victories often depend on identifying specific policies or regulations that prescribe the challenged conduct [7]. Litigation so far mixes individual wins, pending class actions, and state injunction efforts; reporting and legal blogs emphasize that while ICE detentions of U.S. citizens are rare in the abstract, documented cases and lawsuits since 2020 show a persistent pattern that sparks constitutional and statutory claims [8] [9] [10].
5. Competing narratives, agendas, and gaps in the public record
Advocates and Democratic officials frame the litigation as exposing systemic overreach and racialized enforcement that swept up citizens and community members, while defenders in the executive branch have argued for broad enforcement discretion and have sometimes resisted document production or congressional oversight — an institutional tension that shapes both litigation strategy and public reporting [5] [6] [4]. Available sources document many investigations and lawsuits through 2025–early 2026, but public reporting and court dockets vary in detail; where sources do not specify outcomes or cover every case, reporting limitations prevent definitive statements about nationwide totals or every judicial ruling [6] [1].