Which local governments have sued ICE and on what legal grounds?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Several state and local governments, plus government officials and public-interest groups acting on behalf of localities, have sued or challenged ICE in recent years on grounds ranging from secrecy over detention records and FOIA violations to violations of state laws restricting cooperation, unlawful warrantless arrests, improper use of detainers without probable cause, and unconstitutional detention conditions [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Suits rely on statutes and constitutional claims — Freedom of Information Act requests, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, state statutes limiting local-federal cooperation (including 287(g) concerns), the Administrative Procedure Act, and sometimes tort claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act — while defenses often invoke sovereign immunity and the FTCA’s discretionary-function exception [2] [1] [3] [4] [6].
1. Michigan and ACLU litigation to pry open ICE detention records
The ACLU of Michigan filed federal suit against DHS and ICE arguing that a “legal loophole” lets the agencies keep immigration detention records held in county jails secret, hampering civil‑rights oversight and legal representation for detained people [1]. That complaint frames the dispute as one of statutory transparency and public‑records access — effectively forcing federal agencies to account for records tied to local jails that house ICE detainees — and seeks judicial relief to make those records available for civil‑rights monitoring and counsel access [1].
2. ACLU national/affiliate FOIA suits demanding ICE transparency about detention expansion
The American Civil Liberties Union and its state affiliates sued ICE under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain records about ICE’s Requests for Information and potential plans to expand detention capacity in Virginia and elsewhere, arguing FOIA compels disclosure of documents about ICE’s detention planning [2]. Similar FOIA litigation has been brought by LatinoJustice, the American Immigration Council, and Democracy Forward seeking records about coordinated arrests at immigration courts and alleged agency concealment of guidance and communications [7].
3. State attorneys general and state-law challenges to local collaboration with ICE
State officials have used state law causes of action to challenge local collaboration or federal actors they say violate state constraints: Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser filed a civil complaint alleging violations of state laws that limit collaboration between local law enforcement and federal immigration officers, a claim tied to alleged warrantless or indiscriminate arrests by ICE in Colorado [3]. More broadly, litigants have argued that localities cannot enter 287(g) agreements because such arrangements invite illegal racial profiling and conflict with state law protections, a line of attack pursued in New York‑area litigation and state court commentary [8].
4. Fourth Amendment and detainer challenges brought by or on behalf of localities and residents
Locality‑connected litigation has repeatedly challenged ICE detainers as unlawful seizures absent probable cause, framing claims under the Fourth Amendment; ACLU cases such as Gonzalez v. ICE and other detainer litigation assert detainers cause extended detention without probable‑cause determinations [4] [9]. These suits seek injunctive relief and systemic reform of detainer practices that rely on incomplete databases and lack judicial probable‑cause findings [9] [4].
5. Administrative Procedure Act, due‑process claims, and conditions‑of‑confinement suits
Lawsuits filed by advocacy organizations on behalf of detainees in Maryland and elsewhere press APA and constitutional due‑process claims to stop what plaintiffs call unlawful or inhumane detention practices — for example, class actions challenging prolonged holding in “cage‑like” cells at a federal building in Baltimore invoke the APA and due‑process protections to seek court orders halting those practices [5]. Parallel litigation over courthouse arrests argues coordinated DHS/DOJ/EOIR practices deprive people of basic process when government attorneys move to dismiss cases and ICE arrests follow [10] [7].
6. Legal limits plaintiffs face: sovereign immunity, FTCA hurdles, and appellate uncertainty
Local governments and plaintiffs face legal barriers when suing federal agencies: direct suits against ICE as an agency are often blocked by sovereign immunity, pushing plaintiffs toward FTCA claims against the government or Bivens actions against individual officers, but the FTCA contains exceptions such as the discretionary‑function exception and procedural prerequisites that complicate recovery — an issue highlighted by recent commentary urging appellate courts to reassess the FTCA’s scope [11] [6]. These doctrinal hurdles shape how local governments frame lawsuits (FOIA, state statutes, constitutional claims) to avoid immunities that bar straightforward tort suits against ICE.