Lansing, Michigan – A legal fight over when federal immigration officers can make arrests without a warrant has drawn Michigan into a multistate challenge, with Attorney General Dana Nessel arguing that existing limits on ICE authority must remain in place.
At the center of the dispute is a narrow but significant safeguard: federal immigration officers may make a warrantless arrest only when they have probable cause to believe a person is unlawfully present and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained.
Nessel joined 21 other attorneys general in filing an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Ramirez Ovando v. Mullin. The coalition is asking the appeals court to preserve a preliminary injunction requiring U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to follow those statutory conditions.
“Unlawful warrantless arrests do not make our communities safer,” said Attorney General Nessel.
“They do quite the opposite, by undermining public trust in law enforcement and resulting in fewer people willing to report crimes or stand as witnesses. My office will continue to oppose the Trump administration’s attempts to play fast and loose with our immigration regulations.”
Read also: Flint breaks ground on new police and fire training center built for real-world emergencies
The case reached the appeals court after a federal district court in Colorado found that ICE officers had carried out warrantless arrests without determining whether the people involved were likely to flee before officers could obtain warrants. The court issued a preliminary injunction and later found that ICE continued making arrests that violated that order.
Federal officials appealed the injunction to the Tenth Circuit.
Read also: Twenty-five years later, Flint pauses to honor nearly 3,000 lives lost on September 11
In their brief, the states argue that the flight-risk requirement is an important individual safeguard rather than a barrier to immigration enforcement. They say officers must make an individualized determination about whether someone is likely to escape before relying on warrantless arrest authority.
The coalition also points to broader effects that can follow when those limits are disregarded. According to the brief, such enforcement practices can contribute to reduced school attendance, disruptions for businesses and local economies, avoidance of medical care and declining trust in law enforcement. The states argue that fear of unlawful arrests can also make victims and witnesses less willing to report crimes.
The attorneys general maintain that the injunction does not prevent ICE from carrying out lawful immigration enforcement. Instead, they say it requires federal officers to operate within limits already established by Congress.
Joining Nessel are attorneys general from Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawai’i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington.