Under what legal authority can ICE detain U.S. citizens during immigration operations?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
ICE’s own published policy language and multiple news reports agree: as a matter of immigration law ICE lacks authority to deport U.S. citizens and its civil immigration arrest powers are legally directed at non-citizens (see congressional and advocacy statements) [1] [2]. Yet reporting from The Washington Post, local outlets and watchdogs documents dozens to hundreds of incidents in 2024–2025 where people later identified as U.S. citizens were stopped, held or transferred during enforcement operations — and advocates say agency practice, database errors and local jail agreements explain how that happens [3] [4] [2].
1. Why the legal rule is simple: ICE’s civil removal authority targets non‑citizens
Federal immigration statutes create a civil removal system that applies to “aliens” not U.S. citizens; congressional lawmakers and advocacy groups cite ICE’s own guidance that “ICE cannot assert its civil immigration enforcement authority to arrest and/or detain a U.S. citizen” [1] [2]. DHS has also publicly disputed reporting that it deports citizens, insisting agents are trained to confirm status and that “ICE does not arrest or detain U.S.” [5].
2. How citizens nonetheless end up in ICE custody: databases, misidentification, and collateral arrests
Multiple outlets and legal clinics explain the main pathways: outdated or inaccurate federal databases, misidentification when names or biographic details overlap, and arrests made under criminal — not civil immigration — authorities where citizenship isn’t immediately verified [6] [7] [8]. Reporting documents cases where citizens were held until identity could be proven or were swept up during broad enforcement actions [4] [3].
3. Local jails and detainers: a statutory gap turned operational problem
Local jail practices and intergovernmental agreements matter. The case summaries and reporting note instances where county jail detainers or transfers to ICE custody followed routine local arrests (for traffic or other low‑level offenses), producing situations where people later found to be citizens were told they would be transferred for “deportation” because a detainer had been issued [9] [4]. Critics say those agreements let immigration enforcement leverage criminal processes in ways that can catch U.S. citizens in the net [2] [10].
4. Agency posture and political dispute: DHS denials vs. congressional demands
DHS has issued categorical denials that it deports U.S. citizens and argued its training prevents wrongful arrests [5]. At the same time, members of Congress — including bipartisan groups led by Rep. Dan Goldman and Sen. Elizabeth Warren — demanded investigations and documents after an uptick in reported citizen detentions, arguing ICE guidance and poor record‑keeping create vulnerabilities [2]. This is an explicit institutional dispute: DHS asserts compliance; lawmakers and advocates point to documented failures and want accountability [2] [1].
5. Scale and evidence: numbers are contested but troubling
Investigative outlets and local reporting have found more than 170 U.S. citizens held by immigration agents in recent years, with some held for days or weeks and some children affected; defenders of DHS say these are rare and often result from mistaken identity that is corrected [4] [6]. ICE’s public statistics break arrests and detention by citizenship for transparency but critics say the agency’s record‑keeping has been uneven and that precise counts of wrongfully detained citizens remain unclear [7] [2].
6. Legal remedies, proposed reforms, and political pushes
Members of Congress and advocacy groups pushed legislation — for example, bills to bar ICE from detaining or deporting citizens and to impose penalties on agents who unlawfully hold Americans — reflecting a policy response to the documented incidents [1] [10]. Legal analysis from immigration firms and clinics stresses immediate remedies: proof of citizenship, counsel, and litigation when wrongful detention occurs [11] [6].
7. What reporting doesn’t settle and remaining limitations
Available sources do not provide a definitive catalogue of statutory citations that ICE claims permit detention of citizens because ICE’s own stance (as presented in DHS denials) emphasizes training and operational safeguards rather than a legal basis to detain citizens; sources therefore show a legal rule (citizens are not removable) but also document practice failings and disputed interpretations in the field [5] [1]. Comprehensive, independently audited agency data quantifying how many U.S. citizens have been stopped, detained or placed in removal proceedings in 2025 is requested by lawmakers but not fully available in the documents cited [2].
Bottom line: statutory law and ICE guidance state civil removal powers do not apply to citizens [1], but operational realities — bad data, jail detainers, collateral arrests and aggressive enforcement cycles — have produced repeated instances where U.S. citizens were detained or transferred into ICE custody, prompting congressional probes and calls for clear legal fixes [4] [2] [10].