A federal judge has ruled that Washtenaw County may continue its sanctuary policies, including banning ICE agents from county property, after dismissing a Trump administration lawsuit challenging those practices. The ruling carries significant implications for how local jurisdictions can limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
What changed
U.S. District Judge F. Kay Behm granted the county defendants’ motion to dismiss on August 21, throwing out the case in its entirety in an 86-page opinion. The Justice Department had sued in April, naming Washtenaw County, the Board of Commissioners, Sheriff Alyshia Dyer and her office, and Prosecutor Eli Savit and his office.
At issue were policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities, including the Sheriff’s Office policy against holding people for ICE based solely on requests not signed by a judge, limits on sharing information with immigration officials and a county resolution restricting immigration enforcement on county-owned property without a judicial warrant.
In her ruling, Judge Behm wrote that “this is one of a series of lawsuits in which the President of the United States has sought to compel states and localities to do the work and bear the cost of enforcing his preferred immigration agenda” and concluded that “neither the federal government nor the President may conscript local officials to enforce their will”.
Why it matters
This decision establishes that local governments retain constitutional authority to decline participation in federal immigration enforcement. Behm concluded the federal complaint did not show Washtenaw County had done more than exercise its constitutional authority under the Tenth Amendment, and affirmed that while immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility, the federal government cannot require local governments to use their employees, facilities and resources to carry it out.
The ruling directly affects how immigration practitioners advise clients on ICE detainers and local custody transfers. If your client is detained at a county jail, the sanctuary policy means the facility is not required to honor an ICE detainer that lacks a judicial warrant. The judge found that by failing to identify another entity that the county treated more favorably, the federal government could not prove discrimination under the Supremacy Clause, a critical legal distinction that weakens future federal arguments.
Way forward
If you represent clients in Washtenaw County or work with local law enforcement on immigration issues:
- Review county custody procedures: Confirm that the sheriff’s office has updated its policies to align with this decision; document that ICE detainers without judicial warrants are not honored.
- Monitor appeal strategy: The county expects the Trump Administration will appeal the verdict, so track any notice of appeal filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
- Track persuasive authority: While this decision binds only the Eastern District of Michigan, use it as persuasive authority in other districts when arguing Tenth Amendment limits on federal commandeering of local resources.
- Consult the 86-page opinion: Judge Behm’s 86-page ruling contains detailed analysis of the commandeering doctrine; obtain the full text from PACER (Case No. 2:26-cv-10946, E.D. Mich.) for comprehensive legal support in similar disputes.
Disclaimer
This article is provided for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Folaform is a software company, not a law firm. Always consult a licensed immigration attorney before relying on this information for a specific case or situation. Immigration policy and judicial interpretation can change without notice; verify all information against the primary source and current law before taking action.