Immigrants Sue Trump Administration Claiming ICE Runs a 'Cruel Catch-22' With Seized Property

Immigrants are suing the Trump administration in US federal court, alleging that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has, since January 2025, routinely kept seized belongings for months after people were released from civil immigration detention.

The seven named plaintiffs say they walked out of detention without vital possessions such as identity papers, work permits and money. Attorney Norm Eisen called the alleged practice 'a cruel catch-22' in an X post announcing the litigation.

Lost Jobs Feature in ICE Property Claims

The 39-page complaint lists missing driving licences, passports and employment authorisation documents, along with money, jewellery, mobile phones, car keys and clothing. The claim focuses on continued retention after detention has ended, including in relation to documents the plaintiffs accept were lawfully seized at the outset.

'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.

Several plaintiffs lost their jobs because they lacked identification or work authorisation, the complaint states. It also describes significant time and money spent trying to recover or replace possessions.

Why the Lawsuit Challenges ICE Retention Rules

The plaintiffs are not arguing that a statute expressly stops ICE agents from confiscating possessions. Their challenge concerns what they describe as a de facto policy, a practice of retaining property that they argue conflicts with the agency's written rules.

The complaint states: '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.'

They allege breaches of internal agency policies, the Fourth Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act, the federal law that governs how administrative agencies operate. Their challenge covers documents and other forms of property, and they argue that keeping either without justification is unlawful.

The filing argues that ICE treats its Confiscation Directive as permission for officers to choose whether seized documents will be returned. The plaintiffs contend that this interpretation goes beyond what the directive allows.

Instead, they point to a requirement that document retention must be based on a clearly articulated operational need. In their account, the government no longer has a viable reason to hold those possessions once the person has been released.

That argument also underpins their challenge under the Administrative Procedure Act. They contend that the lack of a continuing need makes the alleged policy arbitrary and capricious, and they question the basis on which the agency is exercising its authority.

The constitutional claim goes further. Even if ICE's directive allowed officials to retain documents in these circumstances, the plaintiffs maintain that such a rule would violate the Fourth Amendment.

Earlier Court Orders Address ICE Conduct

The complaint also sets out earlier disputes in which federal judges either held government officials in contempt, or threatened to do so, over ICE's failure to return possessions after release. It refers as well to reports by journalists and immigration lawyers that describe similar conduct.

In September, US District Judge Stephanie Gallagher, a Trump appointee, reportedly identified multiple breaches of court orders in a habeas corpus case brought by an underage immigrant. She ordered the government to return all 'property and documents that were removed from his person at the time of his wrongful removal'.

The lawsuit seeks class certification as well as an injunction. Beyond recovering their own possessions, the plaintiffs are asking for an order requiring ICE to return seized property to people across the United States and preventing the alleged practice from continuing.