What does federal law say about ICE detaining U.S. citizens who are enrolled tribal members?
Executive summary
Federal law recognizes Native Americans born in the United States as U.S. citizens under the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, which places enrolled tribal members outside the ordinary scope of immigration detention; advocacy groups and tribal leaders say ICE therefore lacks authority to detain them for immigration violations [1] [2]. ICE and DHS publicly assert that they do not arrest or detain U.S. citizens, but recent reporting, internal memos and tribal complaints show a conflict between formal legal status and on-the-ground enforcement practices that have led to tribal demands for releases and government-to-government consultations [3] [4] [5].
1. Federal citizenship law: tribal members are U.S. citizens by statute
Congress granted U.S. citizenship to Native Americans born within U.S. territorial limits in the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, a statutory fact that advocacy groups, tribes and multiple news outlets cite to argue enrolled tribal members are legally U.S. citizens and therefore not removable by immigration law [1] [2] [6]. That statutory citizenship has been relied upon repeatedly by tribes and the Native American Rights Fund (NARF) to explain that immigration detention and deportation procedures target noncitizens, not enrolled tribal citizens [7] [1].
2. ICE and DHS public stance: “we do not detain U.S. citizens”
The Department of Homeland Security and ICE have issued denials and public statements asserting that ICE does not arrest or detain U.S. citizens for immigration purposes and that agents are trained to determine status before detaining someone [3] [8]. DHS statements have been used to rebut reporting that citizens were swept up in immigration operations, emphasizing training and procedures to confirm citizenship before detention [3].
3. Advocacy groups and tribes: detention of enrolled members violates law and treaties
Tribal leaders and legal advocates contend that when enrolled tribal members have been taken into ICE custody, those detentions violate federal law, constitutional protections, and treaty obligations; tribes have demanded immediate release, confirmation of detainee status, and government-to-government consultation after recent incidents in Minneapolis and elsewhere [5] [9] [10]. NARF’s guidance explicitly says ICE lacks jurisdiction to arrest U.S. citizens for immigration violations and advises tribal members on asserting their citizenship if approached by ICE [7] [1].
4. On-the-ground practices that complicate the legal picture
Reporting indicates that despite the statutory rule, ICE operations have sometimes resulted in Native citizens being stopped, held or transferred to detention facilities pending status confirmation, and some advocates describe racial profiling or mistaken identity as drivers of those encounters [4] [11] [10]. Legal sources note that once authorities confirm U.S. citizenship, continued immigration detention is not authorized and release should follow—yet tribes report cases where confirmation has been slow or contested [12] [5].
5. Policy changes and legal limits: warrantless entry memos and “brief investigative detentions”
An internal ICE memo reported by NBC suggested officers were instructed they may enter homes without judicial warrants in some immigration operations, a policy that whistleblowers say clashes with longstanding constitutional limits and that could increase the risk of wrongful detentions [13]. Separately, tribal advisories cite recent Supreme Court and administrative developments enabling brief investigative stops—so-called “Kavanaugh stops”—as heightening the risk tribal members will be temporarily detained or questioned based on appearance or language even if they are citizens [14].
6. Where the law is clear—and where reporting shows gaps
Statute and advocacy guidance are clear that enrolled tribal members are U.S. citizens by law and not removable as noncitizens [1] [7]. What is less visible in the provided reporting is a detailed account of how ICE confirms citizenship in every disputed case, whether paperwork or tribal enrollment records were considered timely, and what internal checks prevent prolonged detention of citizens; DHS/ICE public denials exist alongside reporting of actual detentions, creating an evidentiary gap that courts, tribal governments and advocates are now seeking to close through complaints and demands for formal review [3] [5] [9].