Federal immigration officers carrying out the administration’s mass deportation agenda are violating people’s constitutional rights at unprecedented rates, backed by legislation, court doctrines, and an administration that all shield them from being held accountable for misconduct and civilian deaths.
But people can and are suing ICE, and many states are acting to create and expand other avenues for pursuing accountability. From making it easier to sue federal officers and the government to requiring federal officers to clearly identify themselves and limiting state and local police compliance with federal immigration enforcement, lawmakers are introducing legislation to fight ICE violence and overreach.
Suing ICE
It may seem like ICE and its agents can do whatever they want without any consequences. But there is one group of people who have the power to force ICE to answer for the harm the agency is causing: the victims of their abuse. Civil rights lawsuits have the singular potential to hold ICE accountable, and we need lawyers to pursue these claims now more than ever.
There are two main ways individuals can pursue legal accountability for federal officers who engage in wrongdoing: pursuing either a Bivens claim for Constitutional violations or a Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) claim for injuries the officers cause while on duty. The FTCA also permits family members of victims of law enforcement misconduct to seek compensation for the loss of their loved one.
Both are narrow and complicated, but legislators are advancing policies that can change that. The Bivens Act would allow citizens to recover damages for constitutional violations committed against them by federal officials, including ICE. The Right to Redress Act would remove barriers to people suing the federal government under the FTCA for injuries caused by federal law enforcement officers
Identifying ICE Officers
Over the last year, masked ICE officers and other federal agents have descended on towns and cities, stoking fear and amplifying anxiety in communities across the country. When officers can conceal their identities, it empowers them to engage in misconduct with impunity, disempowering communities from seeking accountability and protection from abuses of power.
While officials argue that anonymity is necessary to protect law enforcement from doxxing, allowing them to hide their faces and other identifying information from the public prioritizes shielding law enforcement from accountability over the safety and security of the community members law enforcement agencies purport to serve.
Policies requiring ICE agents and other federal officers to wear identification, including agency designation, while carrying out their duties can ensure accountability and transparency in policing, particularly given the extraordinary powers entrusted to law enforcement officers.
State and Local Cooperation With ICE
Cooperation of state and local law enforcement agencies are an integral piece of Donald Trump’s mass deportation plan. The federal government’s reliance on state and local law enforcement in this unprecedented assault on immigrants will inevitably increase police and carceral contacts with vulnerable communities and, consequently, expose the public to avoidable police violence and civil rights violations.
The strongest safeguard against local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration agents is to avoid placing people in police custody in the first place. Most people in ICE custody as a result of state and local law enforcement cooperation are arrested for non-violent offenses. Decriminalizing or preventing arrests for low-level criminal offenses like traffic infractions would curb arrests that could place people at risk for deportation without jeopardizing public safety.
State and municipal elected officials can shield their communities from this unnecessary harm and protect themselves from the resulting increase in liability. In our policy white paper, we outline the legal and policy problems that result from state and local law enforcement coordination with ICE as well as options to limit cooperation. The paper also provides policy recommendations to maximize protections for immigrant communities by limiting law enforcement contacts with all residents.