How do individual states restrict or allow sharing DMV records with ICE?
Executive summary
States control whether and how ICE can query driver and vehicle records through legal rules, administrative choices and technical controls on interstate law‑enforcement networks; a handful of states have used statutes or network blocks to bar ICE access while most allow some level of sharing—often quietly—through systems like Nlets [1] [2]. The result is a patchwork: some states explicitly prohibit disclosure for immigration purposes or have blocked ICE’s network access, others rely on case‑by‑case agreements that ICE says will limit use but which advocates say are opaque and inconsistently enforced [3] [4] [5].
1. How the data flows: direct requests, agreements and Nlets
ICE obtains DMV information by three main channels: direct requests to state DMVs (including asking staff to run searches or provide photos), formal information‑use agreements or memoranda of understanding with state offices, and through the interstate law‑enforcement network Nlets that connects state databases to federal and out‑of‑state agencies [6] [7] [2]. Nlets in particular functions as a real‑time conduit for driver’s license records and photos; federal lawmakers warned that it facilitated hundreds of thousands of queries by ICE and other DHS components in a recent year, underscoring how network architecture—not just state law—determines access [5] [8].
2. State levers: statutes, administrative “just say no,” and technical blocks
States can and have used three concrete levers to restrict access: statutory bans on disclosing DMV data for immigration enforcement (as New York’s “Green Light” law does), administrative refusals or policies instructing DMVs not to provide photos or to decline ICE face‑recognition requests (“just say no”), and technical measures that block agency identifiers or specific query types on Nlets [3] [9] [1]. At least five states—New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota and Washington—have taken steps to prevent ICE from querying their DMV data via Nlets or similar controls [1] [10].
3. The limits of state action: secrecy, recordkeeping and loopholes
Even where states purport to limit sharing, enforcement and transparency problems persist: advocates and researchers repeatedly find that ICE searches continue, that formal logs and use agreements are missing or withheld, and that Nlets does not require requesters to state their purpose—making technical or policy limits porous in practice [7] [6] [5]. Investigations in Washington and reporting elsewhere show continued ICE queries despite public commitments to restrict access, highlighting how federal access often outpaces state oversight [11] [3].
4. Competing claims and interests: public safety, privacy and politics
State officials and federal agencies frame sharing as vital to locating fugitives or protecting public safety, and some DMVs say ICE must agree not to use data for immigration enforcement before release (a claim made by some state spokespeople) [4]. Immigrant advocates, civil‑liberties groups and many Democratic lawmakers counter that such assurances are insufficient, that Nlets’ design obscures who queries what and why, and that sharing deters immigrant participation in licensing programs with public‑safety consequences [5] [2] [12].
5. What the patchwork means on the ground and the unanswered questions
The practical upshot is a state‑by‑state mosaic: a handful of states have legally or technically limited ICE access, many allow it under agreements or default Nlets sharing, and in several places public records are sparse enough that researchers can’t fully document the scale or rationale for queries—so conclusions about nationwide practice rest on partial evidence and FOIA findings assembled by advocates and journalists [1] [6] [7]. Absent federal rules or consistent state transparency, the balance between privacy, public safety and immigration enforcement remains contested and opaque, with real consequences for drivers’ trust in licensing systems [13] [3].