Which types of claims (civil rights, due process, negligence) dominated lawsuits against ICE from 2021–2025?

1. Civil‑rights and constitutional claims were front and center

Across the reporting sample, plaintiffs repeatedly alleged racial profiling, warrantless arrests, retaliatory arrests of observers and protesters, and inhumane detention conditions — complaints framed as violations of the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments and brought as civil‑rights actions and class suits (ACLU suits in Minnesota; protests/observers; detention conditions) ^{[7] [1] [2] [3]}.

2. Due‑process challenges — especially over deportations and age‑outs — drove high‑stakes litigation

Lawsuits that alleged denial of procedural protections surfaced frequently: class actions forcing ICE to consider less‑restrictive placements for youth aging out of ORR custody (Garcia Ramirez) and suits claiming rapid or secret removals of families that denied counsel and notice were brought as due‑process claims ^{[8] [4]}.

3. Negligence and FTCA claims existed but operated within legal limits and hurdles

Advocates and plaintiffs used the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and related tort avenues to seek damages for violent arrests and injuries, but commentators and counsel note sovereign‑immunity barriers and the FTCA’s discretionary‑function exception that limit such suits — making negligence claims common in practice but legally constrained relative to constitutional claims ^{[9] [6]}.

4. Conditions‑of‑confinement suits amplified civil‑rights frameworks rather than pure negligence theories

Cases challenging detention conditions at facilities emphasized constitutional and statutory rights (e.g., Rehabilitation Act and constitutional protections) rather than simple negligence labels; these suits sought systemic relief and injunctive remedies more than classic tort payouts (Gomez Ruiz) ^[3].

5. State and municipal suits added a constitutional‑sovereignty and political layer

Lawsuits by states and cities against federal deployments framed harms as violations of state sovereignty (10th Amendment) and alleged that operations imposed on local policing and civil life — these are constitutional claims that mix federal‑state separation concerns with civil‑rights style allegations about ICE tactics (Minnesota/Illinois suits) ^{[10] [11]}.

6. High‑profile individual excessive‑force and unlawful‑detention suits kept spotlight on officers’ conduct

Individual plaintiffs alleging violent or unlawful detentions (for example the Massachusetts case reported by The Guardian) pushed excessive‑force and unlawful‑arrest claims and illustrated why plaintiffs often pursue constitutional remedies or seek to name individual officers — reinforcing the dominance of civil‑rights litigation themes ^[12].

7. Counterclaims, dropped suits, and political messaging complicate the litigation picture

Federal statements and agency notices (including a DHS release about a dropped ACLU‑supported suit) and government framing of some actions as baseless or part of lawfare reveal an active counter‑narrative that seeks to delegitimize certain civil‑rights claims and underscores the political stakes behind many lawsuits ^[13].

8. Bottom line: civil‑rights and due‑process claims dominated; negligence played a supporting role

Taken together, the sources indicate that from 2021–2025 plaintiffs most often advanced constitutional and statutory civil‑rights claims (First, Fourth, Fifth Amendments; TVPRA/Rehabilitation Act contexts) to challenge ICE conduct and detention practices, while FTCA/negligence claims were pursued too but were legally limited and less central to the litigation landscape ^{[1] [8] [3] [6] [9]}.