Immigration detainers in local jails
An ICE detainer is a piece of paper asking a local jail to keep holding someone after the jail's own reason to hold them has ended. Courts have held that it is a request, not a command, and that a county which chooses to honor one owns the consequences. If you posted bail, finished your sentence or had your charges dropped, and the jail kept you anyway for ICE, that extra time may be a new seizure without legal authority. Your immigration status does not take the claim away.
Yes, this is a claim, and it is usually a claim against the county or city that runs the jail, not only against ICE. The jail had a lawful reason to hold you: an arrest, a sentence, unpaid bail. When that reason ended, its authority ended. Keeping you for another two days, or two weeks, because ICE sent a form is a fresh decision by the jail, and courts have treated it as a new arrest that needs its own legal basis.
The claim does not depend on your status. It also does not fix your immigration case. Those are two separate tracks, and you need a lawyer on each.
How it happens
- Bail is posted and the door stays shut. Your family pays the bail. The jail accepts the money and then says you cannot leave because there is an immigration hold in the file.
- The sentence ends and the release does not come. Your release date passes. The jail keeps you in the same cell, in the same uniform, until ICE agents arrive to pick you up.
- The charges are dismissed and you go back to the jail. A judge drops the case or orders you released from the courtroom. Officers return you to the jail anyway to wait for ICE.
- A citizen is held as a noncitizen. The detainer names the wrong person or rests on a bad database match. You say you are a citizen and offer proof. Nobody looks at it.
- A form with no judge behind it. The paper in the file is signed by an immigration officer, not a judge. The jail treats it as if it were a court order.
- Nobody tells you why. You are not given a copy of the detainer, not told how long the hold will last, and not brought before any court while it runs.
The claim
Section 1983 makes liable every person who, under color of state law, deprives "any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof" of a constitutional right (42 U.S.C. § 1983). Undocumented people are within that language: "Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a 'person'" (Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)). The right at stake is the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable seizures, which continues to govern a detention after it begins (Manuel v. City of Joliet, 580 U.S. 357 (2017)), along with due process. Three decisions in this site's ledger set out how courts have applied those rights to detainers.
The Third Circuit (New Jersey and Pennsylvania). In Galarza v. Szalczyk, 745 F.3d 634 (3d Cir. 2014), the court held that ICE detainers are requests, not commands. Because a county is free to say no, a county that chooses to hold someone on a detainer can be liable for that policy under Monell.
New York. In People ex rel. Wells v. DeMarco, 168 A.D.3d 31 (2d Dep't 2018), the Appellate Division held that New York law does not authorize local officers to make civil immigration arrests, and that holding a person past release on a detainer is an unlawful new arrest.
Florida. In Brown v. Ramsay (S.D. Fla. May 30, 2025), a federal court held that a Florida sheriff violated the Fourth Amendment by holding a U.S. citizen on a detainer while ignoring proof of citizenship. Florida law nonetheless requires agencies to honor detainers (Fla. Stat. § 908.105). A state statute does not switch off the Fourth Amendment, which is why that case came out as it did.
What this page does not publish
In May 2026 New York lawmakers took up a package that would ban 287(g) agreements and jail holds for ICE. Whether it was signed, and when any part of it takes effect, is not verified in this site's ledger, so it is not stated here. The same is true of New Jersey's current rules on local cooperation with ICE. The claim described on this page rests on the Constitution and the decisions above, not on those measures.
What they will argue
ICE made us do it. The county's first defense is that it only followed a federal instruction. Galarza answers it: a detainer is a request, and the choice to honor it belongs to the county. In Florida the sheriff will point to § 908.105; Brown v. Ramsay shows a court finding a Fourth Amendment violation anyway.
There is no policy. A county is liable under Section 1983 only where an official policy or custom caused the violation, never simply as the employer (Monell v. Dep't of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978)). In detainer cases this defense is weaker than usual, because honoring detainers is rarely one officer's idea. It is a written practice of the jail, and the practice is the policy. See the Monell page.
Qualified immunity. Individual officers will say the law was not clearly established when they acted (Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982)). The dates matter: Galarza is from 2014 and Wells from 2018. The qualified immunity page explains the doctrine.
You were removable anyway. The claim is about who had authority to hold you and on what paper, not about how the immigration case would end. The defense will still use your status to argue that the extra days caused no harm. In the Second Circuit, loss of liberty is separately compensable, independent of physical or emotional harm (Kerman v. City of New York, 374 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2004)).
Sue the federal government instead. That road is narrow. The Supreme Court has called extending a damages remedy against federal officers "a disfavored judicial activity" (Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482 (2022)). The Federal Tort Claims Act does allow claims against the United States for false imprisonment and false arrest by investigative or law enforcement officers (28 U.S.C. § 2680(h)), with a written claim to the agency within two years and suit within six months of the denial (28 U.S.C. § 2401(b)). The ICE and federal officers page covers that path.
What people have recovered
Castaneda v. County of Suffolk: held past release for ICE
A federal jury returned a verdict for a class of 674 people held in a New York county jail past their release dates on ICE detainers: $75 million on the Fourth Amendment claim and $37 million on the due process claim. This is a jury verdict, not money paid. Post-trial motions and any appeal are not confirmed here, and a verdict can be reduced or reversed.
Source: Prison Legal News. A public record of someone else's case, not a result of this firm and not a prediction.
Onadia v. City of New York: detainer holds in City jails
A class settlement fund of up to $92.5 million for more than 20,000 people held in New York City jails past their release on ICE detainers between 1997 and 2012. The court gave preliminary approval in December 2024. Final approval is not confirmed here.
Source: ecbawm.com, the law firm's announcement. A public record of someone else's case, not a result of this firm and not a prediction.
These are other people's cases, and both are class actions in which the total is divided among many people. What a case is worth depends on the injury, the evidence and the defenses; the what a case is worth page explains the factors, and the New York recovery page lists the other verified New York matters.
The clock
The federal claim against the county needs no notice of claim (Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131 (1988)). The state-law false imprisonment claim does, and the notice period is short.
| State | Federal Section 1983 claim | State-law claim against the county or city |
|---|---|---|
| New York | Three years (Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235 (1989); CPLR 214(5)) | Notice of claim within 90 days (N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law § 50-e(1)(a)); suit within one year and 90 days (§ 50-i(1)) |
| New Jersey | Two years (N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2); the Civil Rights Act claim needs no tort notice (N.J.S.A. 10:6-2) | Tort Claims Act notice within 90 days, a six-month wait, suit within two years (N.J.S.A. 59:8-8) |
| Florida | Four years (Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)) | Written claim to the agency within three years, then a six-month wait (Fla. Stat. § 768.28(6)) |
| Pennsylvania | Two years (42 Pa.C.S. § 5524; Kach v. Hose, 589 F.3d 626 (3d Cir. 2009)) | Written notice within six months (42 Pa.C.S. § 5522(a)) |
A claim against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act must be presented in writing to the agency within two years (28 U.S.C. § 2401(b)), and no suit may be filed until the agency has denied it or six months have passed (28 U.S.C. § 2675(a)).
If a criminal charge is still open, talk to your defense lawyer before describing the arrest or the hold to anyone, and read the criminal case and civil case page. If a removal case is open, your immigration lawyer needs to know about the civil claim too. The immigration status page explains how status and a civil rights case interact.
Suing federal officers
Why Section 1983 does not reach ICE agents, what is left of Bivens, and the Federal Tort Claims Act.
ICE and federal officers →Arrested without cause
The probable cause rule, the defenses, and when the clock on a false arrest claim starts.
False arrest →Inside the jail
Force, conditions and neglect in custody, and the exhaustion rule that comes first.
Jail and prison abuse →Common questions
I am not a citizen. Can I still sue the jail?
Yes. Section 1983 protects any person within the jurisdiction of the United States, and the Supreme Court said in Plyler v. Doe that whatever a person's status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a person. The claim is about the jail holding you without legal authority, not about whether you were removable. Talk to an immigration lawyer as well, because a lawsuit does not stop a removal case.
The jail says ICE told it to hold me. Isn't ICE the one responsible?
Not only ICE. The Third Circuit held in Galarza v. Szalczyk that detainers are requests, not commands, so a county that chooses to hold someone on one can be liable for that choice. In New York, an appellate court held in People ex rel. Wells v. DeMarco that local officers have no authority under state law to make civil immigration arrests, and that holding a person past release on a detainer is an unlawful new arrest.
Can I sue ICE or the federal officers too?
That is a different and harder path. Section 1983 covers state and local actors, not federal ones. After Egbert v. Boule the courts rarely allow a damages suit against an individual federal officer. The Federal Tort Claims Act allows some claims against the United States, including false imprisonment by law enforcement officers, and it requires a written claim to the agency within two years.
How long do I have?
For the federal claim against the county: three years in New York, two in New Jersey, four in Florida, two in Pennsylvania. A state-law false imprisonment claim needs a notice of claim within 90 days in New York and New Jersey and written notice within six months in Pennsylvania. A claim against the United States needs a written agency claim within two years.
Tell us what happened.
One conversation with an attorney, in your language. We tell you which claims the facts support, which deadline runs first for the agency involved, what evidence to preserve this week, and whether a pending criminal case changes the timing. If it is not a case we can take, we say so and tell you where to go.
(718) 484-7510If a criminal charge is still open, talk to your defense lawyer before you describe the arrest to anyone, including us. English, Russian and Spanish in-house; an interpreter for any other language. Contingency fee, confirmed in writing before we begin.