Limit 06 of nine · Warrant
Require a judge’s warrant
0 of 36 arrest reports complied with a federal court’s injunction — arrests run on agency forms, not warrants.
The problem
Federal civil arrests run on forms an agency supervisor signs, not a neutral judge. Four federal courts enjoined the warrantless practice and three found defiance; in Colorado, not one of the 36 arrest reports produced under the injunction complied — “It is as if this court’s order never happened,” as the ACLU attorney on the case put it. A state judicial-warrant law is the self-executing answer.
What the law does
Requires a judge’s warrant before any state or local actor detains or transfers a person for federal civil enforcement; agency forms and detainers don’t qualify.
Where it stands
- Alaska: None
- Alabama: None
- Arkansas: None (state law mandates cooperation)
- Arizona: None (state law mandates cooperation)
- California: Full
- Colorado: Full
- Connecticut: Full
- District of Columbia: None
- Delaware: None
- Florida: None (state law mandates cooperation)
- Georgia: None
- Hawaii: None
- Iowa: None (state law mandates cooperation)
- Idaho: None
- Illinois: Full
- Indiana: None (state law mandates cooperation)
- Kansas: None (state law mandates cooperation)
- Kentucky: None (state law mandates cooperation)
- Louisiana: None (state law mandates cooperation)
- Massachusetts: Full
- Maryland: Partial
- Maine: Full
- Michigan: None
- Minnesota: None
- Missouri: None (state law mandates cooperation)
- Mississippi: None (state law mandates cooperation)
- Montana: None (state law mandates cooperation)
- North Carolina: None (state law mandates cooperation)
- North Dakota: None (state law mandates cooperation)
- Nebraska: None (state law mandates cooperation)
- New Hampshire: None (state law mandates cooperation)
- New Jersey: Full
- New Mexico: Partial
- Nevada: None
- New York: Full
- Ohio: None
- Oklahoma: None
- Oregon: Full
- Pennsylvania: None
- Rhode Island: None
- South Carolina: None (state law mandates cooperation)
- South Dakota: None (state law mandates cooperation)
- Tennessee: None (state law mandates cooperation)
- Texas: None (state law mandates cooperation)
- Utah: None
- Virginia: Partial
- Vermont: Partial
- Washington: Partial
- Wisconsin: None
- West Virginia: None (state law mandates cooperation)
- Wyoming: None (state law mandates cooperation)
- Puerto Rico: None
Methodology v3.4 · scored Jun 10 2026
The model language
Read the full model bill →“No state or local agency, and no officer, employee, or contractor of any state or local agency, shall detain any person, hold any person beyond the lawful holding period for state purposes, or transfer any person to federal civil immigration enforcement custody, absent a judicial warrant signed by a federal or state judge or magistrate.”
What we propose
Bar state and local actors from detaining or transferring anyone into federal civil custody without a judge-signed warrant; state plainly that an I-247 detainer or I-200 administrative warrant does not qualify; shield agencies that decline. Model: California SB 54 (§7284.6); Massachusetts Lunn v. Commonwealth.
Who’s already done it
14 states; 9 at full strength — CA, CO, CT, IL, MA, ME, NJ, NY, OR. California’s SB 54 is the statutory model; Massachusetts reached the same bar through its high court (Lunn, 2017).
On the record
- Ramirez Ovando v. Noem (D. Colo.) — noncompliance finding May 12 2026
- Castanon Nava v. DHS — consent decree extended Oct 7 2025; upheld on appeal Dec 11 2025 and May 5 2026
- 8 U.S.C. 1357(a)(2); Galarza v. Szalczyk (3d Cir. 2014)
Status: acute — the warrantless lane is the federal mainline; courts engaged, defiance documented. The state statute is the durable fix.
One of nine.
Not the whole fight.
See where your state stands on all nine limits, or read the model bill section that closes this one.
Check your state → ← Back to the Nine