Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What federal policies guide ICE agents on using race or ethnicity in detention decisions?
Executive summary
Federal materials and recent reporting show a fraught, evolving legal and policy environment: advocacy groups and Human Rights Watch say ICE agents have been detaining people based on perceived race, ethnicity, or national origin [1], while the Supreme Court has stayed lower‑court limits that had barred stops based solely on apparent race or ethnicity [2] [3]. Reporting and think‑tank analyses warn these developments could expand profiling and raise racial disparities in enforcement and community impacts [4] [5].
1. What explicit federal rules say about using race or ethnicity
ICE and DHS public guidance historically prohibit discriminatory enforcement on the basis of race or national origin in the abstract, but specific operational limits have been contested in court. The ACLU and other plaintiffs won lower‑court orders barring agents from relying solely on factors including “apparent race or ethnicity” for stops, but the U.S. Supreme Court granted a stay of that order — effectively pausing the lower court’s restriction — in Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem [2] [3]. Available sources do not provide the current text of any new DHS/ICE internal memo that redefines permissible use of race or ethnicity beyond the litigation record (not found in current reporting).
2. How the courts have shaped what agents may do in practice
Courts are the decisive arena for whether agents can rely on race or ethnicity. A federal judge in California had barred stops based only on race, language, or location; the Supreme Court’s emergency stay reversed that pause, allowing DHS and ICE to continue operations while litigation proceeds [2] [3]. Some outlets frame the Supreme Court action as permitting racial profiling in immigration stops [4], while local fact‑checks stress that the emergency stay is not a final ruling and that no new substantive Supreme Court precedent had been issued as of late October 2025 [6].
3. What enforcement officials and advocates say about practice on the ground
Human Rights Watch and local advocates report ICE campaigns that “rely in large part on detaining people based on their perceived race, ethnicity, or national origin,” documenting raids and practices in Los Angeles and warning of expansion to other cities [1]. ICE and the administration defend enforcement as based on unlawful presence and noncitizen status rather than race, arguing factors like occupation or location can create “reasonable suspicion” — an argument critics say opens the door to profiling [7]. These conflicting claims reflect both operational guidance disputes and competing institutional agendas: civil‑rights groups seek court limits; DHS seeks broad enforcement leeway [1] [7].
4. Evidence on racial disparities and data limits
Researchers and advocates point to racial disparities in criminal and immigration systems more broadly — for example, analyses of incarceration and racialized legal outcomes [8]. Investigations have also alleged ICE misclassification or unreliable race/ethnicity data in detention records, complicating assessments of disparate enforcement [9]. Thus, evidence of disparate impacts exists in reporting and research, but data quality and classification practices limit precise measurement [8] [9].
5. Policy consequences and community impact
Think‑tank and public‑health reporting warn that expanded use of race or ethnicity in enforcement can chill civic life, causing Latino and immigrant communities to avoid schools, health care, reporting crimes, or participating in public life — effects documented in surveys and analyses [5]. Human Rights Watch and the ACLU characterize recent enforcement surges and the legal stay as producing “violent,” “lawless,” or “cruel” outcomes and call for continued legal challenges and oversight [1] [3].
6. Key uncertainties and what to watch next
Major uncertainties remain: whether the Supreme Court will issue a final decision narrowing or affirming the stay’s implications [6], whether DHS/ICE will issue new formal policy guidance codifying permissible grounds for stops, and how internal data collection reforms might affect transparency (not found in current reporting). Litigation outcomes and improved data on race/ethnicity in ICE records will be the clearest signals of whether practice becomes further regulated or remains driven by prosecutorial and enforcement discretion [6] [9].
Sources cited: Human Rights Watch on L.A. enforcement and racial targeting [1]; reporting on evolving legal limits including the Supreme Court stay and lower‑court orders [2] [3] [6]; national reporting and analysis framing the change as permitting profiling [4] [7]; scholarly and advocacy work on racial disparities and data issues [8] [9]; Brookings and KFF context on community impacts and detention trends [5] [10].