You keep responding as though I claimed "ICE detainers are inherently unconstitutional."
I did not.
What I said is that ICE detainers alone are often insufficient legal basis to continue holding someone after lawful state/local custody ends.
That distinction matters.
An ICE detainer is a request from ICE asking a local jail to continue holding someone so ICE can assume custody. Courts have repeatedly ruled that if a jail holds someone past their lawful release time solely because of that request, without independent probable cause or a judicial warrant, that can violate the Fourth Amendment.
That is not a fringe claim. It is established caselaw.
Examples include:
Miranda-Olivares v. Clarkamas County: continued detention solely on an ICE detainer violated the Fourth Amendment.
Galarza v. Szalczyk: ICE detainers are requests, not mandatory commands, and local jurisdictions can be liable for unlawful detention if they honor them without lawful basis.
Morales v. Chadbourne: detention based solely on an ICE detainer violated constitutional protections against unreasonable seizure.
Lunn v. Commonwealth: Massachusetts officers lacked authority to arrest solely on the basis of a civil ICE detainer.
And those are only a few examples:
So to reiterate: no, sanctuary jurisdictions are not “releasing criminals early just because they hate ICE.”
In many of these cases, the person had already:
- completed their sentence,
- posted bail,
- had charges dropped,
or - otherwise reached the point where state/local law required release.
And courts have repeatedly said: not without sufficient legal authority.
As for CBP One, you are again misrepresenting the process.
The app was not an automatic-entry pass. It was a scheduling tool used to arrange appointments for processing and asylum claims at ports of entry.
Using the app no more "guaranteed admission" than using Calendly guarantees you a job offer. It scheduled the appointment; the claim still had to be evaluated through the legal process.
Last edited:
