Local officials grow wary of helping ICE detain immigrants

A burgeoning rift is emerging between local law enforcement agencies and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), as a growing number of police chiefs and sheriffs voice deep apprehensions about the legal and financial risks associated with detaining immigrants without proper judicial warrants. This tension highlights a critical juncture in national Immigration Policy, where local Law Enforcement officials are increasingly wary of ICE Detainers and the potential for significant Legal Liability their departments face, prompting a reevaluation of traditional cooperation methods.

At the heart of this dispute lies the fundamental difference between an ICE detainer and a judicially issued warrant. While ICE requests local agencies to hold individuals suspected of being in the U.S. unlawfully—typically for a 48-hour period—these detainers lack the legal authority of a judge’s warrant. As Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison (D) emphatically stated, relying solely on an ICE administrative warrant essentially means “holding somebody and locking them up when there’s no legal, lawful authority to do so,” exposing institutions to substantial Civil Rights claims and considerable Legal Liability.

The financial ramifications of unlawfully holding detainees have already manifested in staggering costs for local governments. A notable instance involved New York City, which paid out $92.5 million in a settlement to approximately 20,000 individuals held for ICE without due process between 1997 and 2012. Such historical precedents underscore the grave Legal Liability that Law Enforcement agencies face, making officials increasingly hesitant to assume the financial burden and legal risk of extended detentions based merely on ICE requests.

This evolving stance has led to public dissent and, in some cases, political backlash. Iowa’s Sheriff Dan Marx, for instance, controversially aired his concerns about ICE Detainers violating Fourth and Sixth Amendment protections against warrantless arrests and the right to due process. His candor, however, drew a formal complaint from Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds, highlighting the political tightrope local officials walk when prioritizing constitutional adherence over federal mandates in Immigration Policy enforcement.

Beyond individual officials, jurisdictions nationwide are adjusting their policies to mitigate exposure to lawsuits. The Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office, for example, only honors ICE Detainers when a detainee has a warrant for a violent offense—a policy stemming from a 2010 legal settlement over individuals held without due process. Similarly, Montgomery and Delaware counties in Pennsylvania now explicitly require judicial warrants in addition to ICE detainers, reflecting a broader movement among Law Enforcement agencies to establish clearer legal grounds for detention and reduce Legal Liability.

The National Sheriffs’ Association has actively engaged with the Trump administration and lobbied Congress, seeking legislative solutions and clarity on the duration of ICE-mandated holds. Despite these efforts, local officials like former police chief Michael Tupper observe that speaking out often leads to being “painted as soft on crime,” when in reality, they are striving to uphold constitutional principles and protect their communities from significant financial and legal burdens. This mounting pressure on Law Enforcement leaders is expected to intensify as federal Immigration Policy continues to emphasize aggressive deportation efforts.