Which specific ICE practices have been challenged as unconstitutional and in which court cases?
Executive summary
Courts and advocates have challenged a wide range of ICE practices as unconstitutional — from warrantless detentions and courthouse arrests to detention conditions, mandatory no‑bond policies, biometric stops, racial‑profiling tactics, and ICE detainer requests — in cases and filings across federal and state courts (examples: Gomez Ruiz v. ICE; Sarmiento v. Perry; litigation over courthouse arrests brought by Immigrant ARC and others) [1] [2] [3]. Judges have issued injunctions or rulings limiting some tactics (for example, orders forbidding abusive conditions at 26 Federal Plaza and restoring bond eligibility for large groups), even as higher courts and the Supreme Court have at times narrowed those limits [4] [5] [6].
1. Warrantless arrests and courthouse arrests — “You can’t be swept into deportation in the hall”
Civil suits and district judges have attacked ICE’s practice of arresting people at immigration courthouses and during routine check‑ins as violating due process and court procedures; advocates filed Immigrant ARC et al. v. Department of Justice to challenge coordinated courthouse arrests and dismissals, arguing DHS instructed ICE to arrest people even when judges declined immediate dismissals, undermining the right to a full removal hearing [3]. Local reporting and court actions have likewise focused on warrantless street and workplace arrests, with a federal judge in Colorado ordering limits on unjustified warrantless arrests in a recent opinion [7].
2. Detainers and local custody — “Detainers lack legal force, courts keep saying”
Multiple courts have concluded ICE “detainers” (requests that local jails hold people for ICE) can be unconstitutional when they produce prolonged, warrantless detention without probable cause; law reviews and federal decisions emphasize that an I‑247 detainer is not an arrest warrant and can violate the Fourth Amendment when honored by local authorities [8]. That line of challenge has produced rulings that restrict how detainers may be used or hold local agencies liable when they detain without probable cause [8].
3. Mandatory detention and bond eligibility — “Courts pushing back on blanket no‑bond rules”
Litigation has attacked DHS and ICE policies that deny bond hearings to people who entered without inspection. A federal judge struck down a DHS fast‑track deportation policy and other rulings have restored bond eligibility for thousands, with advocates arguing mandatory detention policies violate due process; one notable case is Gomez Ruiz v. ICE in Northern California [1] [5]. Non‑profits and NILC trackers note courts have overruled administrative weighty BIA precedent to protect bond rights [9].
4. Detention conditions and contractor liability — “You cannot hold people in abusive cages”
Civil actions have successfully attacked detention conditions as unconstitutional. A U.S. district court granted a preliminary injunction barring ICE from holding people in cramped, abusive conditions at New York’s 26 Federal Plaza and required hygiene and lawyer‑access improvements [4]. Separately, detainees are suing detention contractors like GEO Group; the GEO Group v. Menocal matter reached the Supreme Court on interlocutory and immunity questions, reflecting challenges to contractor practices and potential liability when contractors follow ICE directives [10].
5. Special populations — juveniles and SIJS holders — “The law protects children too”
ACLU’s Sarmiento et al. v. Perry litigates that ICE unlawfully detained immigrant youth with Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) without bond; a federal judge ruled parts of that detention unlawful, and the case could overturn mandatory detention policy for SIJS youth in Virginia [2].
6. Surveillance, biometrics, and profiling — “Face scans and racial profiling land in court and Congress”
Advocates, lawmakers and press coverage have challenged ICE’s use of biometric apps and face scans as unconstitutional or deeply troubling; reporting describes concerns that ICE relies on mobile biometrics (Mobile Fortify or similar tools) to make “definitive” status calls and may ignore evidence of citizenship, raising Fourth and Fifth Amendment and equal‑protection concerns [11]. Separately, groups and the American Immigration Council decried a Supreme Court order (Vasquez Perdomo) that critics say permitted racially‑targeted stops, prompting litigation over profiling limits [6] [12].
7. Use of force, misrepresentations, and covert tactics — “Judges have flagged abusive enforcement behavior”
Courts and local reporting have documented judges finding ICE or federal agents used misleading justifications for force, provoking injunctions and appeals; in Chicago a judge criticized widespread misrepresentations used to justify force and the 7th Circuit stayed that preliminary order pending appeal [13]. State attorneys general and coalitions have sued to halt mass raids and secretive plain‑clothes operations that they call unconstitutional for public‑safety and due‑process reasons [14].
Limitations and competing views: available sources document many plaintiffs’ filings, preliminary injunctions, and judicial criticism of ICE practices [3] [4] [1] [2], but they also show higher courts and the Supreme Court have, in some instances, narrowed district‑court limits or stayed orders [13] [6]. Some federal actors argue state laws that constrain ICE (for example, unmasking agents) are unconstitutional federal preemption issues — that defense appears in DHS/DOJ press statements and partisan outlets [15] [16]; available sources do not mention all cases or outcomes nationwide, and they do not provide a single authoritative list of every ICE practice ever litigated.
Sources cited in this briefing: Immigrant Justice Center complaint and press materials [3]; ACLU press release on 26 Federal Plaza [4]; Ars Technica reporting on biometrics [11]; ACLU/ACLU‑backed Gomez Ruiz and other injunction reporting [1]; law review analysis on detainers [8]; NILC, ABC, and related coverage on bond‑eligibility rulings [5] [9]; Sarmiento v. Perry reporting [2]; Supreme Court and profiling coverage [6] [12]; reporting on contractor litigation and GEO Group [10]; Colorado and Chicago court stories [7] [13].