(filed April 9, 2026)
U.S. v. County of Washtenaw Michigan, et. al. - The Trump Administration sued the County of Washtenaw, the County’s sheriff, and the County’s prosecutor’s office. The government is challenging the Sheriff’s Office General Order 1.14 (January 20, 2025) that generally does not inquire about a person’s immigration status, will not honor detainers, and will not use the sheriff’s office resources to enforce federal immigration laws. Additionally, the government is challenging the prosecutor’s office directive 2021-12 (February 24, 2021) that generally does not inquire into a defendant's immigration status and encourages the consideration of mitigating circumstances to avoid immigration consequences for a defendant. Lastly, the government is challenging Washtenaw County’s resolution, A Resolution Opposing the Use of County Buildings and Face Coverings by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Officers, Customs and Border Protection Officers, or their Contractors During Civil Immigration Enforcement Activities in Washtenaw County (Jan. 21, 2026), which prohibits federal immigration officers from entering county-owned property unless required by a judicial warrant. On June 17, 2026, the county and others filed a motion to dismiss the government’s complaint. On August 21, 2026, the federal court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice. The court first found the government had standing to challenge the policies. However, as to the prosecutor’s office directive, it held 8 USC §§ 1373 and 1644 did not preempt it because the policy expressly preserved compliance with federal law. Additionally, the court held the Sheriff’s refusal to honor ICE detainers without a judicial warrant was not preempted because immigration detainers are requests rather than commands. Federal law permits state and local cooperation but does not require cooperation. Also, the court upheld the Board of Commissioners’ restriction on ICE access to county property without a judicial warrant because federal immigration law does not give immigration officers an unrestricted right to use county-owned property and the County was acting as the proprietor of its own property. Lastly, the court held that the County’s policies did not unlawfully regulate or discriminate against the federal government and could not be invalidated simply because they limited voluntary local participation in federal immigration enforcement. The government may appeal the decision.