ICE use of detention contracts with states
📘 Part 1: ICE Detention Contracts with States – An Overview
What are ICE detention contracts?
ICE detains non-citizens for civil immigration violations (not criminal offenses). Because ICE does not own enough facilities, it contracts with state and local governments, as well as private contractors, to house detainees. These contracts fall under various legal and administrative mechanisms:
Intergovernmental Service Agreements (IGSAs): Agreements between ICE and local or state governments.
IGSA Subcontracts: Local governments may subcontract to private prison companies (e.g., GEO Group or CoreCivic).
Direct federal contracts with private prison companies (less common, but significant).
Key Legal and Political Issues
Federal vs. State Authority: States have tried to terminate ICE detention contracts, citing state laws or policy preferences (especially in "sanctuary" jurisdictions).
Preemption: The federal government often argues that immigration enforcement is a federal matter and states cannot interfere.
Contract Law: Disputes over contract terms, termination clauses, and obligations.
Human Rights and Due Process: Lawsuits frequently challenge the conditions in these facilities.
📚 Part 2: Key Case Law – In-Depth Analysis
1. Geo Group, Inc. v. Newsom, 15 F.4th 919 (9th Cir. 2021)
🔹 Background:
California passed Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), which banned the operation of private detention facilities, including immigration detention centers, in the state after January 1, 2020. This would effectively prohibit ICE from contracting with private companies to detain noncitizens in California.
🔹 Legal Issue:
Did AB 32 violate the Supremacy Clause by interfering with the federal government’s authority to enforce immigration laws?
🔹 Court’s Holding:
The Ninth Circuit struck down AB 32 as unconstitutional as applied to ICE contracts, finding it was preempted by federal law.
🔹 Rationale:
The court emphasized that the federal government has exclusive authority over immigration enforcement.
The law "purported to eliminate the federal government’s ability to contract with private detention providers" and thus "intruded into the federal government’s powers."
🔹 Importance:
This case affirms that states cannot enact blanket bans on private immigration detention when those facilities are used by federal agencies like ICE.
2. United States v. California (SB 54 Case), 921 F.3d 865 (9th Cir. 2019)
🔹 Background:
California enacted Senate Bill 54, limiting cooperation between state/local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities.
🔹 Legal Issue:
Did SB 54 interfere with federal immigration enforcement?
🔹 Court’s Holding:
The Ninth Circuit upheld the majority of SB 54, ruling that the federal government cannot compel states to participate in federal immigration enforcement.
🔹 Rationale:
Anti-commandeering doctrine: The federal government cannot require states to enforce federal laws.
SB 54 did not prevent ICE from doing its job, just limited state cooperation.
🔹 Importance:
This case clarified that while states can choose not to assist ICE, they cannot block ICE from operating independently or contracting with private or local entities.
3. Biden v. Texas, 142 S. Ct. 2528 (2022) – While not directly about contracts, it's relevant.
🔹 Background:
This case involved the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) or "Remain in Mexico" policy. Although not about contracts, it addressed the federal executive branch’s discretion over immigration enforcement policies.
🔹 Legal Issue:
Did the Biden administration lawfully end the MPP?
🔹 Holding:
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the administration had the authority to terminate the policy.
🔹 Rationale:
The Immigration and Nationality Act gives the executive discretion in how it detains or releases noncitizens.
It reinforced that detention decisions are within the executive branch’s power, which includes contracting decisions.
🔹 Importance:
This case highlights that contracting for detention is a discretionary federal function, strengthening ICE's position when challenged by state/local resistance.
4. CoreCivic, Inc. v. Newsom, No. 2:20-cv-00754 (E.D. Cal.)
🔹 Background:
This case also challenged California’s AB 32, but from the perspective of a private prison company (CoreCivic), which argued that the law violated federal preemption principles and interfered with existing contracts.
🔹 Status:
CoreCivic won a preliminary injunction, and the case tracked similar arguments as Geo Group v. Newsom.
🔹 Importance:
It underscores that private entities contracting with ICE can challenge state laws if those laws interfere with federal immigration enforcement.
5. Oregon Advocacy Center v. Mink, 322 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2003) – Indirectly relevant
🔹 Background:
This case involved due process rights for detainees held in state facilities under federal arrangements, including civil commitment or immigration detention.
🔹 Legal Issue:
What rights do individuals have when held under civil confinement?
🔹 Holding:
The court emphasized that detainees (even if not convicted) have constitutional rights that must be respected, especially concerning conditions of confinement and access to legal processes.
🔹 Importance:
Supports litigation against ICE/state contracts when detention conditions violate constitutional rights, giving detainees standing to sue over abuse or neglect in contracted facilities.
⚖️ Legal Themes and Implications
| Legal Theme | Description | Key Case |
|---|---|---|
| Preemption | Federal immigration law overrides conflicting state law | Geo Group v. Newsom |
| Anti-commandeering | States can’t be forced to help ICE | U.S. v. California (SB 54) |
| Contractual Rights | Private companies can challenge state interference | CoreCivic v. Newsom |
| Due Process | Detainees have rights regardless of ICE contracting | Oregon Advocacy Center v. Mink |
| Executive Discretion | ICE has broad authority over detention decisions | Biden v. Texas |
📝 Conclusion
ICE’s use of detention contracts with states and private entities operates at the intersection of federal supremacy, state sovereignty, and individual rights. While the federal government retains broad authority to contract for immigration detention, states can limit their own involvement but cannot obstruct federal enforcement. The case law consistently upholds the federal government’s discretion in immigration matters, especially regarding detention, while ensuring that basic constitutional protections for detainees are respected.
RELATED Blog
0 comments