On June 30, 2026—one day before Indiana’s Senate Enrolled Act 76 (the FAIRNESS Act) was scheduled to take effect—a state trial judge blocked part of the law as it applies to Monroe County Sheriff Ruben Marté. Special Judge Luke Rudisill granted Monroe County Sheriff Ruben Marté’s request for a preliminary injunction against the recently passed Senate Enrolled Act 76, or the Indiana FAIRNESS Act. The ruling signals serious constitutional concerns about requiring local law enforcement to honor ICE detainer requests without a judicial warrant.
What changed
Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita is now enjoined from enforcing Section 9(a)(3) of the law, only as it applies to Marté and his office. That section requires law enforcement agencies holding an individual subject of a federal immigration detainer request to “comply with all requests made” in the detainer form.
The injunction is narrow in scope: Sheriff Marté lost big time in federal court last week, and this week has failed in his attempt in state court to stop the FAIRNESS Act’s detainer mandate from going into effect statewide. Earlier today, a Monroe County Court issued a narrow injunction that only applies to Sheriff Marté and rejected the Sheriff’s request for a statewide injunction. All other law enforcement agencies in Indiana remain subject to the FAIRNESS Act. Starting tomorrow, July 1, state law requires law enforcement to honor ICE detainers.
The judge found the constitutional case compelling. Rudisill determined that Marté had met the sufficient burdens for injunctive relief, namely, a likelihood of success, irreparable harm and a balance of harm and the public interests. Marté argued in state court that the Fourth Amendment of the Indiana Constitution prevents him from detaining an individual based solely on an ICE detainer request, since those requests are not necessarily accompanied by a judicially signed warrant or show probable cause to arrest an individual.
Why it matters
This ruling exposes a critical tension in immigration enforcement: Federal courts across the country have reached a consistent conclusion: ICE detainers, standing alone, do not provide a constitutional basis for holding someone in custody. Yet SEA 76 would mandate local jails to honor them anyway.
For Monroe County, the immediate impact is that Sheriff Marté’s office can now continue its pre-July 1 policy of honoring ICE detainers only when accompanied by a judicial warrant—and the Attorney General cannot fine or enjoin the sheriff for doing so. For the rest of Indiana, however, the new mandate takes effect as scheduled.
The ruling also reflects a troubling catch-22 that Marté outlined: The lawsuit states Marté and his office would face civil liability from the AG’s office if he failed to comply with detainers as dictated by SEA 76 but that SEA 76 would require him to act unconstitutionally. Sheriff Marté therefore faces an impossible situation: any action he takes in response to SEA 76 will expose MCSO to liability and risk violating the fundamental duties of his office.
Practitioners in Monroe County now have a temporary shield for their clients in that jurisdiction. Practitioners elsewhere in Indiana should anticipate more litigation: the Attorney General’s office has indicated it intends to appeal the order, and constitutional challenges to warrantless ICE detainer statutes are rising in federal court nationwide.
Way forward
-
If you represent a client detained in Monroe County: Note the preliminary injunction in your habeas corpus motion or Fourth Amendment argument. The sheriff’s office should not be holding your client on a detainer alone; demand judicial review of any continued custody.
-
If you represent a client detained elsewhere in Indiana: SEA 76’s detainer mandate now applies statewide outside Monroe County. File a federal habeas petition (28 U.S.C. § 2254) or a Fourth Amendment § 1983 claim if your client is held past release based on a detainer without a warrant. Cite the pattern of federal case law that a federal judge ruled that Clackamas County, Oregon violated the Fourth Amendment by detaining a woman past her release date based solely on an ICE detainer.
-
Monitor appeals: The office said it plans to appeal the order and is confident the detainer mandate in the FAIRNESS Act is constitutional. The Court of Appeals ruling will clarify whether Monroe County’s exemption survives or whether statewide enforcement proceeds.
Disclaimer
This article is provided for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. We are a software company, not a law firm. Immigration law is complex and rapidly evolving. You must consult a licensed immigration attorney or accredited representative to discuss your specific situation and verify these findings against the primary source linked above. Policy can change without notice; always check current court dockets and AG guidance before filing.