What legal remedies and legislative proposals have been advanced to rein in ICE tactics since 2024?
Executive summary
Federal, state and local actors have pursued a mix of litigation, state statutes, regulatory rulemaking and congressional bills to constrain aggressive ICE tactics since 2024, even as new federal spending and political directives have at times expanded enforcement tools [1] [2] [3]. The record shows a two-track struggle: reformers pushing statutory limits, oversight and court challenges, and countervailing federal maneuvers — including large appropriations and administrative memos — that blunt or complicate those remedies [3] [4] [5].
1. Litigation as a frontline restraint: test cases and court orders
Civil suits and emergency petitions have been a primary remedy, challenging specific ICE practices and seeking injunctive relief; federal litigation over local enforcement and practices — including cases that reached stays or were affected by Supreme Court decisions — has shaped what tactics remain permissible in particular jurisdictions [6] [5]. State supreme courts and state-level petitions have also probed whether local actors exceeded authority by honoring ICE detainers, with Wisconsin and other states seeing original actions and removal of claims to federal court as advocates argue state law limits local cooperation [1].
2. State and local statutes: carving out "sensitive locations" and detainer bans
Several states and municipalities have passed laws restricting where and how ICE can arrest people — for example, statutes that limit immigration arrests at schools, universities, hospitals and courthouses and that require identification by officers — and local councils have voted on measures banning warrantless detainers, reflecting a patchwork defense against aggressive tactics [1] [7]. These measures create real operational constraints on ICE’s reliance on local cooperation, but their effectiveness varies and often triggers legal contests over preemption and federal supremacy [1].
3. Congressional proposals: the ICE Security Reform Acts and reform bills
Congress has seen repeated proposals to regulate ICE’s conduct, including the ICE Security Reform Act (drafts in 2024 and renewed in 2025) that aim to impose new standards on agency operations and oversight; H.R.9896 in the 118th Congress and H.R.673 in the 119th are concrete legislative entries seeking to change ICE structure, accountability or conduct [8] [9]. At the same time, appropriations and major immigration bills with large enforcement funding have moved through Congress, producing a contradictory effect: some bills would rein in tactics, while others—like large enforcement appropriations—expand ICE’s resources and operational reach [10] [3].
4. Administrative rulemaking and regulatory deterrents
The Department of Homeland Security and DOJ signaled rulemaking to clarify detention and release standards under the Immigration and Nationality Act, with proposals expected to formalize discretionary limits on detention and add procedural hurdles to enforcement (and to invite legal challenges about burdens of proof), a bureaucratic avenue for reining in tactics without new statutes [2]. Such regulatory moves are politically fraught: they can constrain front-line officers but are themselves vulnerable to reversal or litigation and depend on the administration in power [2].
5. Oversight fights, access to facilities and practical limits
Oversight battles have emerged over congressional access to detention sites and information; recent litigation blocked a DHS policy that tried to limit lawmakers’ unannounced visits by relying on new funding streams, illustrating how funding and administrative arguments can be used to shield practices from scrutiny [4]. Internal agency reports and advocacy focus on access to counsel and conditions in facilities — areas where reporting and oversight feed legal remedies such as injunctions or conditions on funding [11] [4].
6. Political context, countervailing incentives and limits of current remedies
Reform efforts exist alongside political incentives that favor aggressive enforcement: a major uptick in enforcement operations and memos loosening previous constraints have led to more arrests and tactical changes that courts and states are still grappling with [5] [3]. Advocacy groups, state legislatures and members of Congress press for statutory and regulatory checks, but their proposals face competing agendas in appropriations and judicial rulings; where sources do not detail final outcomes of specific bills or court appeals, this report limits itself to the record of proposals, litigation and policy moves described above [3] [9] [6].