Monroe County Sheriff Ruben Marte filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday against Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita, asking a judge to stop a new state law that would force local jails to honor ICE detainer requests even when there is no judicial warrant. Marte’s complaint says the statute would require deputies to keep people locked up beyond their scheduled release dates and could expose the sheriff’s office to civil liability. The suit asks the court to declare the law unconstitutional and block it before it kicks in this July.
New law at the center
Indiana’s Senate Enrolled Act 76, set to take effect July 1, would require jails and other custodial entities to comply with Department of Homeland Security detainer requests and to honor those immigration detainers as written, according to the sheriff’s complaint. Marte argues the measure would force him to hold people based solely on ICE detainer requests, without a warrant or probable cause, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, Bloomberg Law reports.
What the sheriff asked the court to do
In a complaint filed April 8 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Marte asked the judge to block enforcement of SEA 76 and declare detainer-only holds unconstitutional. The 15-page filing explains that the county’s current policy tells deputies not to honor ICE detainers unless there is a judicial warrant. Marte’s attorneys are asking the court to rule that detainer requests without a warrant violate the Constitution, as reported by WTHR.
Background and previous fights
The new lawsuit joins a growing list of moves by the Attorney General’s office targeting local governments and institutions over immigration detainer policies, including disputes with Indianapolis Public Schools and earlier litigation over Monroe County’s approach, The Indiana Lawyer reported. Rokita has leaned on the new SEA 76 amendments along with other legal tools to pressure county jails, school districts and agencies he says are limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
The legal stakes
Marte’s filing argues that forcing jailers to detain people at ICE’s request creates a new, warrantless seizure and opens deputies and the county to constitutional claims and potential civil damages. The complaint identifies the case as Marte v. Rokita, S.D. Ind., No. 26e2cve2701, and asks the court to stop the law before it takes effect. Georgetown University Law Center’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection and the Monroe County Legal Department are representing Marte in the case, according to Bloomberg Law.
How detainers work
Immigration detainer requests, typically issued on ICE’s Form I-247A, ask state or local authorities to notify ICE before releasing a person and to hold that person for up to 48 hours past the scheduled release so federal agents can assume custody, according to ICE. That key distinction between a detainer as a request and a warrant as a judicial order is central to Marte’s constitutional challenge.
Local implications
For Monroe County, the fight is not just theoretical. Deputies could be ordered to keep people locked up past their release dates or risk being sued for failing to follow state law, while immigrant communities argue that such holds make residents less likely to call local police or cooperate with investigations. The back-and-forth has already spilled into public view: Rokita has accused Marte of ignoring an ICE detainer request in the past, and the sheriff’s office has publicly defended its policies, according to WTHR.
What comes next
The lawsuit is newly filed and seeks an injunction that would prevent SEA 76 from taking effect while the court weighs the constitutional issues. Both sides are expected to file briefs on whether the state can force local jailers to carry out federal detainer requests without approval from a neutral magistrate, and the court’s ruling could shape how counties across Indiana respond to ICE for years to come.
.jpg){kind=link}