How do I‑200/I‑205 administrative warrants interact with local sanctuary policies and IGSA agreements?
Executive summary
I‑200 and I‑205 are ICE administrative warrants—internal authorization forms that document ICE’s authority to take someone into immigration custody but are not judicially issued or reviewed, and therefore carry important limits when they intersect with local “sanctuary” policies and Intergovernmental Service Agreements (IGSAs) [1] [2]. Whether a local agency must honor or act on those forms depends on local law and policy, the presence of deputization agreements (like 287(g)/WSO) or formal contracts (IGSAs/BOAs), and constitutional constraints that leave local agencies potentially liable if they effectuate arrests without proper legal basis [3] [2].
1. What the I‑200/I‑205 actually are — administrative, not judicial
Forms I‑200 (Warrant for Arrest of Alien) and I‑205 (Warrant of Removal) are administrative warrants issued by ICE officers as internal authorization to arrest or remove a named person; they are not issued by a neutral magistrate and therefore do not carry the same powers as judicial warrants, nor do they substitute for a court’s probable‑cause finding [1] [4].
2. Sanctuary policies — refusal, limits, and legal rationales
Local sanctuary policies typically restrict municipal involvement in federal immigration enforcement by prohibiting use of local resources to investigate, detain, or transfer people to ICE based solely on administrative documents like I‑200/I‑205 or detainer requests; jurisdictions rely on the limits of these forms and constitutional concerns to justify non‑cooperation [3] [5]. Many sanctuary ordinances interpret ICE administrative warrants as insufficient legal authority for local officers to re‑arrest or extend detention beyond local processes, citing Fourth Amendment risks and state constitutional equivalents [4] [3].
3. When sanctuary limits are overridden — deputization and contractual pathways
Sanctuary restrictions can be effectively altered where the federal government has deputized local officers (287(g)/WSO) or where local governments have signed IGSA/BOA contracts to provide detention beds and services; under those arrangements, local personnel may have delegated authority to execute ICE warrants in specific contexts (especially inside jails), and I‑200/I‑205 paired with WSO or 287(g) can authorize actions that sanctuary rules would otherwise forbid [2] [6]. Advocates note that WSO deputization often grants less training and narrower authority, yet it enables ICE to hold people up to 48 hours in local custody before transfer, effectively bridging sanctuary limits through federal‑local cooperation [2].
4. IGSAs and the financial and capacity incentives that change behavior
IGSAs are contracts that rent jail beds to ICE and substantially increase federal detention capacity; because local jails are typically paid per person detained under an IGSA, financial incentives can push jurisdictions toward cooperation despite sanctuary promises, and IGSA participation makes it operationally easier for ICE administrative warrants to result in transfer to federal custody [2] [3]. Policy advocates call for terminating IGSAs and related agreements because they institutionalize cooperation and create perverse incentives to prioritize revenue or capacity over sanctuary commitments [2].
5. Legal limits and local liability — the bottom line for police and sheriffs
Even when ICE presents I‑200/I‑205, local law enforcement officers remain bound by constitutional constraints and their own state law; executing an arrest or extending detention can constitute a new, local arrest that creates liability for Fourth Amendment violations if not supported by proper legal authority, and administrative ICE forms themselves do not absolve local agencies of that liability [3] [5]. Additionally, administrative warrants do not authorize entry into non‑public areas (like private offices or homes) without consent or a judicial warrant, a limitation that many local policies rely on when denying ICE access [7] [8].
6. Competing narratives and institutional agendas to watch
ICE and some sheriffs’ associations frame I‑200/I‑205 as necessary operational tools to effect removal and to coordinate with local partners, while immigrant‑rights groups and local reform advocates argue the forms are a workaround that evades judicial oversight and exploits local budgets via IGSAs and deputizations; both perspectives reflect institutional incentives—federal removal goals on one side and local fiscal or public‑safety calculations on the other—so analysis must track which agreements (287(g), WSO, BOA, IGSA) are active in a jurisdiction to predict how an administrative warrant will play out [2] [6] [9].