ICE in the Port City
Alexandria's potential responses to ICE's immigration enforcement activities
Immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility that requires regular interaction between U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel and Virginia sheriffs who oversee jails.
ICE’s profoundly inhumane tactics are evident almost daily as in, for example, the January 7 fatal shooting of Renee Good in Minneapolis. Masked ICE agents have arrested U.S. citizens and permanent legal residents, along with undocumented persons, because of their skin color. ICE arrests people seeking legal resident status who appear for immigration proceedings, and ICE separates parents from children.
These actions destroyed, as to ICE, the presumption of regularity—the longstanding assumption that federal officials will act honestly and in accordance with law. As a result, local law enforcement agencies are pulling back and cooperating with ICE on a minimal basis.
Alexandria Sheriff Sean Casey’s interactions with ICE involve a mix of legal, practical, and policy issues. These concerns are compounded by ICE’s tactics and the community’s widespread empathy for Alexandria’s immigrant residents. ICE’s increasing arrests and deportations make a coordinated community response to ICE enforcement actions in Alexandria essential.
What follows clarifies the frequency of custodial transfers from Sheriff Casey’s office and other jurisdictions to ICE. We then analyze Sheriff Casey’s decision whether to comply with ICE-issued administrative warrants or to require ICE to present a judicial warrant, i.e., a warrant signed by a judge. The legal nuances are interesting, but the essential question is what is best for Alexandria, not how hypothetical litigation might resolve. Finally, there are respectful suggestions for a way forward for Alexandria on which comments are very welcome.
Sheriff-to-ICE Custody Transfers in Alexandria, Arlington County, and Fairfax County
Alexandria
Sheriff Casey’s office publicly reports how many inmates are transferred to ICE on a yearly basis.
The city’s website includes the Sheriff’s Office Statement on Immigration Concerns which can be seen
The Statement on Immigration Concerns includes year-by-year totals showing the number of inmates transferred to ICE since 2012. In graph form, the information is as follows:
The data indicates a long-term downward trend: for the last five years a yearly average of 31 inmates were transferred by the Alexandria Sheriff to ICE. The average over the last 10 years is 56 inmates per year.
The majority of inmates transferred to ICE committed serious offenses. Descriptions of the offenses committed by inmates transferred by the Alexandria Sheriff to ICE in 2023, 2024 and 2025 can be seen
Arlington County
The Arlington County Sheriff requires a judicial warrant as a condition of a custody transfer to ICE. The Arlington Sheriff’s Immigration Fact Sheet can be seen
The Fact Sheet states:
● Fingerprints for individuals that are arrested, are submitted to the Northern Virginia Regional Identification System (NOVARIS) and Virginia State Police. The ACSO does Immigration Alien Queries (IAQs) on inmates arrested on a felony charge. A hold is placed on the person only if Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) gives the ACSO a judicially signed warrant. [Emphasis added.]
According to an Arlington County Sheriff’s office representative, two inmates, both facing felony charges, were transferred by the Arlington Sheriff to ICE in 2025. According to an FOIA response, in each of 2024 and 2023 one inmate facing a felony charge was transferred by the Arlington Sheriff to ICE.
Fairfax County
On January 22, 2018, the Fairfax County Sheriff sent a letter to ICE stating that after, “…May 23, 2018 the Fairfax County Sheriff’s Office will not honor any requests to detain individuals subject to an administrative detention request unless there is a corresponding lawfully issued criminal detainer.” The letter can be seen
In 2021, the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors adopted a Public Confidentiality and Trust Policy to insure that immigrant residents have access to county services. The Trust Policy states:
Cooperation with civil administrative immigration enforcement is especially problematic because it lacks the constitutional protections of criminal law, and ICE civil detention requests are frequently issued in error. The County will comply with all federal or state law and regulations mandating cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other federal immigration officials, as well as valid judicial warrants and subpoena, but will otherwise restrict sharing of personal identifiable information that could be used to further immigration enforcement efforts.
The Trust Policy can be seen
In response to an inquiry, a representative of the Fairfax County Sheriff wrote, “In 2023 one inmate was released to ICE; in 2024 two were released to ICE, and as of Dec. 16, nine have been released to ICE this year.”
Other Virginia Jurisdictions
The website of the Virginia Sheriffs’ Association shows that 35 of Virginia’s 123 elected sheriffs are responsible for overseeing the operations of a jail. The website can be seen
In an interview, Norfolk City Sheriff Joseph Baron said that his office had issued a 2024 policy stating that “Virginia has a well-settled and codified policy of cooperation and communication with federal law enforcement officials, which includes ICE and CBP [Customs and Border Patrol] officials.”
The Norfolk Sheriff’s policy is to “…provide a reasonable opportunity for federal immigration officials to take custody of those persons who have already been committed to the Norfolk City Jail for violation of state or criminal law pursuant to a Judicial Warrant or otherwise authorized by law.” The complete policy can be seen
Baron said that his office has an agreement to house federal prisoners for the U.S. Marshall’s Service. To Baron’s knowledge, the Arlington County and Fairfax County sheriffs are the only Virginia sheriffs who require a judicial warrant as a condition of a custody transfer to ICE.
Should Sheriff Sean Casey Require a Judicial Warrant as a Condition of Releasing Inmates to ICE?
On November 12, 2025, the Alexandria City Council issued a statement on immigration that can be seen
The City Council’s statement said, “... we call upon the Sheriff to cease his transfer of persons in his custody in response to ICE administrative detainers and warrants. We ask that he join the Sheriffs in Arlington and Fairfax who only complete transfers in compliance with judicial warrants.” Sheriff Casey was quoted in media accounts as being surprised by the Council’s statement.
A judicial arrest warrant requires a law enforcement official to appear before a judge and explain why there is probable cause to believe that the person identified in the warrant committed a crime. The warrant requirement implements the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable seizures. An ICE administrative warrant on Form 200 requires an immigration officer to determine that there is probable cause to believe that the person identified in the warrant is removable from the United States. Form 200 can be seen
Whether a judicial, as distinct from an administrative, warrant should be required as a condition of a custody transfer from a sheriff to ICE involves the nature of the due process legally required in immigration enforcement. To date, Sheriff Casey has not indicated a willingness to change Alexandria’s practice of completing custody transfers in response to ICE administrative warrants.
This difference between administrative and judicial warrants issued in criminal cases reflects the fact that immigration enforcement is a civil, not criminal, process. The Supreme Court explained in Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 407 (2012) “[a]s a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States.”
Accordingly, a key question is whether a local law enforcement officer, such as a sheriff, can and should require the completion of a criminal law process—the issuance of a judicial warrant—as a condition of completing a custody transfer to ICE.
The Legal Authority for ICE Administrative Warrants
The Immigration and Naturalization Act, at 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), authorizes the United States Attorney General to issue warrants for the arrest and detention of aliens. The authority granted by Congress in the INA to the Attorney General has been construed to extend to the Secretary of Homeland Security.
DHS has promulgated regulations under the INA. DHS’ regulations, at 8 C.F.R. §236.1(b), state:
(b) Warrant of arrest—
(1) In general. At the time of issuance of a notice to appear, or any time thereafter and up to the time removal proceedings are completed, the respondent may be arrested and taken into custody under the authority of Form 1-200, Warrant of Arrest. A warrant of arrest may be issued only by those immigration officers listed in §287.5(e)(2) of this chapter and may be served only by those immigration officers listed in §287.5(e)(3) of this chapter. [Emphasis added.]
In short, designated immigration officials are empowered by federal regulations to issue and serve administrative warrants, and to arrest and take custody of persons named in the warrants.
State and local government law enforcement agencies can enter into agreements with ICE under which they are delegated immigration enforcement powers, but Sheriff Casey has declined to sign such an agreement. Last year, Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares opined that, “…in the absence of such an agreement or other specific authorization…state and local officers lack the full functionality of an immigration officer.”
The Legal Authority for a Sheriff to Require ICE to Present a Judicial Warrant
Those repelled by masked and armored ICE personnel, and their enforcement tactics, seek to deter ICE. ICE administrative warrants and judicial warrants are issued under different standards for different purposes in different (civil versus criminal law) contexts. A judicial warrant for a custody transfer requires a judge’s approval—ICE must meet a more rigorous standard than that required for an administrative warrant.
The best expression of the arguments that local sheriffs can ignore ICE administrative warrants and require judicial warrants may be a position paper, What is an ICE administrative warrant and what legal authority does it confer?, by the Immigrant Legal Resource Center which can be seen
The ILRC argues, among other things, that, “An ‘ICE warrant’ is not a real warrant” and that sheriffs may disregard ICE administrative warrants because state and local officials are not authorized by DHS regulations and Form 200 to issue and serve administrative warrants.
Practical and Policy Considerations
There appear to be no controlling court decisions that directly address whether sheriffs can disregard ICE administrative warrants and require a judicial warrant. The paramount concern, however, is not what happens in other jurisdictions or how a hypothetical court case would come out—it is what is best for Alexandria.
Alexandria, and other localities, are paying the price for the decades of congressional inaction on immigration reform that created conditions that permitted the Trump Administration to cynically and cruelly exploit immigration as a political issue.
Here are some important takeaways.
Sheriff-to-ICE Custody Transfers in Northern Virginia Are a Small Fraction of ICE’s Detentions. Immigration enforcement by ICE in Northern Virginia is not going away. On December 28, 2025, The Washington Post reported extensively on the significant increase in ICE at-large arrests. At-large arrests, which totaled 79,000 over October and November of 2025, far exceed the custodial transfers of jailed inmates. The Trump Administration’s target for ICE is 3,000 arrests per day and 1 million per year. According to the Post, the at-large ICE arrests during President Trump’s second term were more than four times the arrests in his previous term. The Post article can be seen
Sheriff Casey is caught in a no-man’s land. In December 2025, a federal jury convicted former Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan of felony obstruction of justice for leading an ICE arrest target to a non-public exit from her courtroom. The Dugan case shows that it does not take much to cross the line between non-cooperation and possibly prosecutable obstruction of justice. A more complete account of the Dugan case can be seen
If Sheriff Casey gave inmates a head start by releasing them out of ICE’s view through a jail side door he would incur obstruction of justice legal risks like those that led to Judge Dugan’s prosecution. Even releasing inmates through the front door creates public safety concerns if ICE pursues them outside the Alexandria Detention Center at 2001 Mill Road. At the same time, Sheriff Casey could be sued for violating the Fourth Amendment if his office illegally detains someone.
Alexandria’s Situation is Unique. ICE’s excesses, and the suffering of America’s immigrants, impel the desire to change Alexandria’s status quo. However, the proposition that Sheriff Casey should simply follow the Arlington and Fairfax Sheriffs by insisting on judicial warrants as a condition of custody transfers to ICE requires a thoughtful risk analysis for the city as a whole.
Arlington and Fairfax have had their judicial warrant requirements in place for several years. The political climate, and ICE and DHS, are more threatening and aggressive now. A change in Sheriff Casey’s inmate release procedures could lead to litigation by DHS seeking to further empower ICE through a judicial ruling that local law enforcement officials must comply with ICE administrative warrants.
Sheriff Casey’s Intergovernmental Agreement with the U.S. Marshal’s Service is a Relevant Concern. The Alexandria Sheriff’s office has long had an agreement with the U.S. Marshal’s Service. Sheriff Casey’s office signed a May 1, 2025 Intergovernmental Agreement with the U.S. Marshal’s Service to house federal prisoners in the Alexandria jail on a per diem basis. Many of these inmates are involved in proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in the Albert V. Bryan Courthouse in Courthouse Square. On January 1, 2023 the agreement was modified to remove ICE, so Sheriff Casey does not house ICE detainees. Alexandria receives about $7 million per year in payments under the agreement. It is easy to imagine the Trump Administration cancelling this agreement in response to a change in Sheriff Casey’s ICE-related custody release procedures. Accordingly, a broad-based community discussion about immigration enforcement is essential
Alexandrians Should Work Together as a Community. Irrespective of how custody transfers to ICE are processed, Alexandria’s elected leaders, and others, can and should advocate on the full range of ICE-related issues.
Orderly protests of ICE’s tactics can be held, red know-your-rights information cards can be distributed to undocumented persons, “ICE Out of 703” signs can be printed and displayed, and elected officials can continue to express solidarity with immigrant residents.
Anti-ICE advocates can also heed Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis’ advice that, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” Community organizations in other regions, notably Southern California, track ICE’s activities online as a social justice and constitutional law critique, and as a warning to at-risk residents. For example, L.A. TACO tracks ICE arrests in Los Angeles and nearby areas on a raid-by-raid basis. More information on L.A. TACO can be seen
Renee Good’s shooting by an ICE agent on January 7 was tragic in many ways, one of which was the demonstration of just how cautious citizens must be in monitoring or observing ICE.
A Few Final Words. Today’s ICE-related crisis is not of Alexandria’s making, but it is up to Alexandria to respond and it should do so as one community. Sheriff Casey and the City Council were elected by the same voters. They should work together to develop and lead a coordinated community response to ICE.
Your comments are very welcome.
Thanks for reading About Alexandria!
Subscribe for free to receive new posts.
 | A guest post by
|
So I wonder how the new executive order signed by Spanberger will effect Casey, if at all.
ICE is doing the job of evicting unwanted criminals and other offenders. Had the Democrats NOT left the border open and other entries unattended the Expensive actions now would not be needed.
We are a land of laws or NOT! The woman in Minneapolis should have obeyed the instruction of the police and NOT blocked the road-which is unlawful. harassing law enforcement and stalking is also unlawful along with running down an officer!