Illinois Sanctuary Laws Face Evasion as 17 Sheriffs Hold ICE Detainees

(ILLINOIS, UNITED STATES) At least 17 county sheriffs in Illinois are holding people in ICE custody by using U.S. Marshals Service contracts, a workaround that keeps immigration detention in local jails despite the state’s sanctuary laws that forbid direct agreements with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The shift, documented by investigative reporting in 2025, has sparked sharp debate over whether these arrangements violate the intent of the Illinois Way Forward Act and the TRUST Act, which were designed to end civil immigration detention in Illinois and limit cooperation between local police and federal immigration authorities.

Advocates say the practice undercuts state law and extends fear in immigrant communities, while sheriffs and county leaders point to federal authority and budget pressures as reasons they keep the beds open.

Background: Illinois sanctuary laws and the Marshals workaround

Illinois adopted some of the country’s strongest sanctuary safeguards after years of organizing by immigrant families, lawyers, and faith leaders. The TRUST Act set core limits on civil immigration enforcement by state and local agencies, and the Illinois Way Forward Act—effective August 2, 2021—expanded those limits to shut down local detention for civil immigration purposes.

On paper, the law is clear: it prohibits law enforcement agencies and officials from entering into any “agreement to house or detain individuals for federal civil immigration violations.” Yet the ground-level picture is more complicated.

Instead of signing with ICE, at least 17 sheriffs have signed contracts with the U.S. Marshals Service, which then assigns beds to ICE, keeping people in immigration detention inside county facilities. That two-step approach has become the focal point of a legal and policy standoff now drawing statewide and national attention.

How the Marshals contracts operate and why they matter

• Counties argue they do not have a direct agreement with ICE, and therefore the local ban does not apply.
• Advocates counter that a contract routed through the U.S. Marshals Service is still, in substance, an agreement to detain people for federal immigration purposes.
• The National Immigrant Justice Center has urged state and federal officials to review the contracts and enforce state law.
• The American Immigration Council notes that even in sanctuary states, some cooperation with ICE can persist through indirect means, including information sharing and federal workarounds that do not require local agencies to sign directly with ICE.

This tension exposes the limits of state policy when federal agencies maintain broad powers and when local jails face financial incentives to keep beds filled.

Practical realities for people detained

• People end up in the same county jail, wearing the same uniforms, subject to the same rules, whether a contract is labeled ICE or Marshals.
• From a detained person’s or family’s perspective, the label on the contract matters little; what matters is that someone in civil immigration proceedings—not a criminal conviction—is locked up in a county jail.
• Advocates argue this result violates the spirit of the Illinois Way Forward Act.

Counties’ legal & financial defense

Counties base their defense on legal form and financial realities:

• Legal form:
  • Contracts are with the U.S. Marshals Service, a federal law enforcement agency that houses federal detainees in local jails for various federal reasons.
  • Counties say they are not “entering into an agreement to house or detain individuals for federal civil immigration violations” because the formal contracting party is the Marshals, not ICE.
• Financial pressures:
  • Per-diem payments for occupied beds help cover jail operating costs and sometimes broader county budgets.
  • Many jails were built or expanded during years of rising federal detention; losing that revenue without a replacement plan is a financial risk for counties.
  • The U.S. Marshals Service routinely places people in local jails for non-immigration federal matters, so counties frame the Marshals relationship as longstanding and not new.

Whether courts will accept the counties’ narrow, form-based reading if challenged remains an open question.

Constitutional and legal concerns

• Federal courts have repeatedly affirmed that ICE detainers are voluntary for local agencies.
• Holding someone past their release date without a judicial warrant can raise Fourth Amendment concerns.
• Advocates say the same constitutional risks exist when people are kept in county jails on the civil side of immigration through indirect contracts.
• Counties counter that when the Marshals are the contracting party, the federal government assumes legal responsibility for the hold.
• The line between who orders a hold and who carries it out can blur, and that ambiguity is likely to be tested in litigation.

Key facts at a glance

Information-sharing and federal databases

Even with state restrictions, information sharing continues:

• Local police fingerprinting sends prints to federal systems that ICE can access.
• The Illinois Way Forward Act targets detention contracts but does not shut off federal data pipelines.
• People can move from local arrest into immigration custody if they have prior removal orders or pending immigration cases, even without a local ICE contract.

Role of the U.S. Marshals Service

The Marshals Service:

• Houses people for federal courts and federal agencies.
• Maintains a network of agreements with local jails nationwide.
• If a Marshals contract covers various federal holds, ICE can obtain space without signing directly with the county.
• Counties argue this keeps them within state law; advocates call it a shell game.

The question of whether form overrides function under Illinois law remains unresolved and may require litigation or state enforcement guidance.

Where the legal fight may go next

Possible pathways:

1. Litigation:
   • Courts could rule that indirect Marshals contracts are equivalent to banned civil immigration detention agreements, forcing counties to end the practice.
   • Alternatively, courts could validate the workaround, indicating lawmakers must tighten the statute.
2. State enforcement:
   • The Illinois Attorney General or other officials could enforce the statute against counties using Marshals contracts for civil immigration detainees.
3. Legislative fixes:
   • Lawmakers might amend the statute to explicitly cover indirect arrangements and close the loophole.
4. Budget solutions:
   • Counties that want to exit the practice may need state support to replace lost per-diem revenue, e.g., funds for jail downsizing or reentry programs.

Impacts on families, communities, and local services

• Personal impacts:
  • Families face immediate disruption—loss of income, childcare strains, children missing school.
  • Detainees often struggle to access counsel, documents, and consistent contact with family.
• Community response:
  • Hotlines, bond funds, visitation teams, and legal clinics help mitigate harms.
  • Local networks provide know-your-rights sessions and rapid response guidance.
• Employers & services:
  • Small businesses lose workers suddenly.
  • Schools and clinics may need more counseling and social services.

Practical steps for people at risk of detention

Community groups recommend:

• Keep a family plan with emergency contacts, childcare arrangements, and who can access key documents.
• Memorize important phone numbers in case personal phones are taken.
• Keep proof documents ready: identity, Illinois residency, and prior immigration records.
• Consult a licensed immigration attorney immediately if a loved one is detained.
• Avoid unlicensed “notarios.”

Federal posture and resources

ICE maintains that detention is an essential tool in the immigration system and uses alternatives like monitoring and check-ins. For official information about ICE detention operations and policy, consult the agency’s website at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

That federal posture underscores why state-level limits alone may not fully end local involvement in civil immigration detention. If there is space in a county facility through a Marshals contract, ICE can seek to use it—even in a state that has tried to close the door to direct cooperation.

Political and local dynamics

• Sheriffs’ concerns:
  • Running safe jails, cooperating on federal criminal matters, and maintaining staffing, training, and medical care often rely on federal per diems.
  • Some argue that ending Marshals contracts abruptly could harm jail operations or complicate criminal case cooperation.
• Public debate:
  • The term “sanctuary” can imply a complete break from federal enforcement, but in practice the reality is partial.
  • Sanctuary laws block some uses of local resources for civil immigration enforcement, but they do not stop federal agencies from acting under federal authority.

What resolution might look like

• A court ruling against the workaround would push counties to end Marshals-based holds for civil immigration detainees or face penalties.
• A ruling for the workaround would shift pressure to lawmakers to close the loophole.
• Either outcome would affect transparency, enforcement, and budgeting decisions across counties.

The ongoing standoff in Illinois is a case study in federal-state friction: a state with strong sanctuary laws aims to end civil immigration detention in local jails, while federal agencies retain tools to place people in custody. As of late 2025, at least 17 sheriffs in Illinois still use the Marshals path. The result depends on court rulings, state enforcement choices, budget solutions, and local political will.

For now, the practical advice to families is clear: learn your rights, connect with trusted legal help, and watch county agendas and contract renewals closely. The decisions made in those rooms affect who sleeps at home and who sleeps in a jail cell—even in a state that has promised to move away from immigration detention. And in a country as large and varied as the United States 🇺🇸, Illinois’ experience will be watched by other states weighing how far their own sanctuary laws can reach when federal workarounds come into play.