President Donald Trump speaks in the Cabinet Room of the White House, Friday, Oct. 17, 2025, in Washington (AP Photo/Alex Brandon).
The Trump administration is unlawfully confiscating the personal property of detained immigrants and thus setting them up for failure upon their release, a new lawsuit filed in federal court claims.
Since January 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has "routinely failed to return important items seized from people detained for civil immigration purposes after releasing them," the lawsuit alleges. Such property includes government-issued documents like driver's licenses, passports and employment authorization documents, as well as items like money, jewelry, cellphones, car keys and clothing, according to the filing.
In a 39-page complaint, several immigrants who have had their property confiscated since President Donald Trump took office say ICE's behavior in this regard is unlawful because it violates internal agency rules, federal statutory law and the U.S. Constitution.
"ICE has a de facto policy of failing to return property seized from people detained for civil immigration purposes, depriving people of their property long after any legitimate governmental interest in the property has expired," the lawsuit begins. "ICE has deprived people of such items for far longer than any conceivable governmental interest would justify, often months after the individuals were released from ICE custody."
While the plaintiffs do not suggest there is any statute outright barring ICE agents from confiscating such property, the lawsuit argues the de facto policy violates the agency's actual confiscation and detention policies, the Fourth Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the federal statute that governs the behavior of administrative agencies.
"The upshot is this: The De Facto Policy, whether applied to documents or any other form of property, is unlawful several times over," the lawsuit goes on. "Plaintiffs … seek the return of items that ICE unlawfully failed to return to them as well as safeguards to prevent ICE from continuing to unreasonably deny people their property."
In a post on X (formerly Twitter) announcing the litigation, attorney Norm Eisen termed the policy "a cruel catch-22."
The lawsuit says it describes "seven people who fell victim" to the de facto policy after they were detained and released.
"At least five months have passed since each Plaintiff was released from ICE custody, and all Plaintiffs are still missing important property, despite requesting its return," the filing alleges.
The plaintiffs claim they have been negatively financially affected by the government holding onto the belongings in question.
On top of expending "significant resources to replace or regain their possessions," several plaintiffs have lost their jobs due to the lack of identification or work authorization, according to the complaint.
The filing makes clear the allegations against ICE are nothing new.
"Across the country, federal judges have held government officials in contempt, or threatened to do so, due to ICE's failure to return items that had been seized from people released from ICE detention," the complaint goes on. "Journalists and immigration lawyers have reported a similar practice."
In September, U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher, a Trump appointee, found numerous violations of court orders in a habeas corpus case filed by an underage immigrant. In that case, she ordered the government to return all of the "property and documents that were removed from his person at the time of his wrongful removal."
In the present case, the plaintiffs insist ICE is violating its own policies when it refuses to surrender lawfully seized documents.
"The De Facto Policy demonstrates how ICE has operationalized the Confiscation Directive and shows that the agency treats it as authorizing officers to choose whether to return seized documents," the lawsuit goes on. "Properly read, however, the Confiscation Directive does not authorize such conduct. Instead, the Confiscation Directive states that ICE's enforcement officers … must '[e]nsur[e] that decisions to retain documents are based on a clearly articulated operational need.'"
In other words, the plaintiffs allege the government no longer has any viable "need" to retain such property after an immigrant is released.
This alleged lack of need dovetails with the APA argument. The plaintiffs allege the lack of need makes ICE's behavior arbitrary and capricious, a term of art derived from the APA's originating statute — which refers to agency actions that go too far while eschewing formal, mandatory processes.
But the lawsuit also stakes out even broader territory to argue the de facto policy is "unconstitutional."
"To the extent that the Confiscation Directive did indeed authorize ICE to retain documents in these scenarios, it would be unlawful under the Fourth Amendment," the plaintiffs claim.
The lawsuit seeks class certification and an injunction.
The plaintiffs not only hope to regain all of their confiscated property, but to force ICE to return such property throughout the country — and to stop the policy from being acted upon in the future.
Comments