ICE Urges Gov. Newsom to Honor Immigration Detainers in California

1) Overview of the DHS/ICE call to California

On February 6, 2026, DHS and ICE issued a formal demand to Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta urging California to honor federal immigration detainers for people already in state and local custody. The request sits at the center of a long-running federal–state conflict over “sanctuary” limits and what cooperation should look like inside jails and prisons.

An ICE detainer is typically a written request sent to a jail or prison asking the agency to notify ICE before a person is released and, in some cases, to hold the person briefly past the scheduled release time so ICE can assume custody. A detainer is not the same as a criminal arrest warrant issued by a judge. That distinction matters. Many disputes turn on whether holding someone solely on a detainer is lawful under the Fourth Amendment’s rules on seizures and probable cause.

The flashpoint is practical as much as legal. Federal officials argue that custody transfers from a jail are safer and more controlled than attempting an at-large arrest after release. California’s sanctuary framework, centered on California Senate Bill 54 (California Values Act), limits when local agencies may assist with civil immigration enforcement. That can mean an individual is released on the state timeline, with ICE left to decide whether and how to arrest later.

The scope here is narrow but high-stakes. The DHS/ICE call targets people already booked into local jails or held in state facilities, not general street stops or workplace checks. Numbers cited by federal officials describe detainers and releases within that custody setting, and they are used to support the claim that non-cooperation is widespread.

2) Official statements and rhetoric

Federal messaging on February 6, 2026 used explicit public-safety language to justify expanded detainer compliance.

ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons said:

“Governor Newsom and his fellow California sanctuary politicians are releasing murderers, pedophiles, and drug traffickers from their jails back into our neighborhoods and putting American lives at risk. Cooperation could prevent further victimization.”

DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said:

“We are calling on Governor Newsom and his administration to stop this dangerous derangement and commit to honoring the ICE arrest detainers of the more than 33,000 criminal illegal aliens in California’s custody. It is common sense. Criminal illegal aliens should not be released from jails back onto our streets to terrorize more innocent Americans.”

In this context, “sanctuary policies” generally refers to limits on information sharing, detainer holds, and custody transfers for civil immigration enforcement. It does not always mean a total ban on cooperation. Many jurisdictions still share some data, respond to some inquiries, or cooperate in narrower circumstances.

That gap—between broad political framing and the fine print of statutes and local rules—drives much of the conflict. Public statements can signal an enforcement position. They do not automatically change what SB 54 permits, or what local counsel advises an agency to do on liability grounds.

3) Key statistics and policy details

DHS and ICE cite detainer and release numbers to argue that California’s limits lead to releases “despite” detainers. In their framing, the figures show missed custody-transfer opportunities that could have kept ICE arrests inside controlled facilities rather than in the community.

The same figures can be read differently by state and local officials. A detainer may be declined because it is treated as a request, not a mandate, and because holding beyond the release time can raise constitutional and civil liability risks. A jail may also act differently depending on what paperwork accompanies the request. Some cases involve only a detainer form. Others may include an administrative warrant. A judicial warrant changes the risk picture.

Federal officials also provided “crime category” counts for detainer-affected individuals in custody. Those breakdowns often require care. They may reflect charges rather than convictions, may cover a specific timeframe, and may not explain whether the person is awaiting trial, serving a sentence, or eligible for release. Custody status matters. So does the legal posture of the criminal case.

SB 54 (the California Values Act) generally restricts state and local law enforcement from using personnel or resources for federal civil immigration enforcement. The law includes exceptions that can allow coordination in cases involving certain serious or violent offenses and defined circumstances. In practice, agencies often focus on three decision points:

• Will the facility notify ICE about a pending release date?
• Will it permit transfer under an exception or local policy?
• Will it hold someone past the release time, and if so, under what authority?

The core legal tension is well known. Because detainers are usually treated as requests, local agencies that hold a person without sufficient legal authority may face claims that the detention was unlawful.

Table 1: Key figures and status

4) Context and significance

Federal officials argue that jail-based handoffs reduce risk. In that view, controlled custody transfers avoid the uncertainty of locating and arresting someone later, which can increase danger for officers and bystanders. The federal position also treats detainer cooperation as a public-safety measure tied to removal priorities.

Gov. Newsom’s office rejected the DHS/ICE framing as “political grandstanding” and pointed to ongoing cooperation within legal constraints, including more than 12,000 transfers to ICE custody since 2019. That response matters because it signals California’s central claim: cooperation exists, but it is filtered through SB 54’s limits and local legal risk assessments.

Sanctuary conflicts often play out through shifting policy guidance, litigation threats, and differences between counties. One sheriff may share release dates more readily. Another may refuse holds without a judicial warrant. The result is uneven practice even within the same state.

Public conditions also shape the temperature of the dispute. The DHS/ICE demand arrived during heightened public debate and unrest tied to immigration enforcement, including events connected to deaths during federal operations in Minneapolis, Minnesota. That backdrop can push officials toward sharper rhetoric, even while jail administrators focus on day-to-day operational exposure and constitutional guardrails.

5) Impact on affected individuals

For detainer-affected individuals and families, the federal–state standoff can produce several real-world pathways. One outcome is a direct transfer from local custody into ICE custody, often soon after a criminal release date. Another is release into the community on the state timeline, followed by an ICE attempt to arrest later. A third possibility is that ICE arrives at release and takes custody if local policy permits coordination but avoids extended holds.

Small procedural differences can change outcomes. Criminal case posture matters. So does the person’s immigration history, prior removal orders, and whether ICE can quickly confirm identity. Local policy also plays a role, since SB 54 sets a statewide framework but implementation can vary.

Civil-rights concerns are often raised when detainers are issued or honored without a judicial warrant. Advocates argue that extended detention can become an unlawful seizure, especially if the person would otherwise be released, if identity is mistaken, or if the hold runs longer than allowed. Government officials who favor detainer compliance respond that avoiding releases reduces victimization risk and improves officer safety.

Both views focus on what happens in the gap between a state release time and an ICE pickup. Procedure is the battleground. Minutes can matter.

⚠️ Note the constitutional and civil-rights concerns raised by advocates regarding detainers issued without judicial warrants, including Fourth and Fifth Amendment arguments about unlawful holds, mistaken identity, and prolonged detention.

6) Official government sources and references

Primary documentation helps separate quotes from enforceable instructions. Readers tracking this dispute should check official releases for timestamps, later edits, and any attached documents such as letters or policy summaries. Saving a copy can help when decisions are time-sensitive.

Key official items dated February 6, 2026 include:

• DHS press release: “SANCTUARY CALAMITY: DHS and ICE Urgently Call on Gavin Newsom and Sanctuary California to Not Release 33,179 Criminal Illegal Aliens.”
• ICE newsroom statement: “DHS and ICE urgently call on Gavin Newsom and Sanctuary California not release.”
• California Governor’s Office response: “Governor’s Office demands Kristi Noem learn to google”

For readers who want the statutory text of SB 54 and related references, a reliable public law repository is law.cornell.edu (state statutes are typically collected and linked there).

Use official releases carefully. Confirm the date and whether the agency later posted corrections. Distinguish rhetoric from operational directives aimed at field offices or local partners. If you are relying on a statement for a custody decision, keep a screenshot or PDF copy.

✅ Readers in California or with affected loved ones should verify current local policy and official guidance before relying on statements for time-sensitive decisions.

This guide discusses legal and policy issues involving immigration enforcement; readers should consult qualified legal counsel for individual circumstances

Facts reflect official statements and reported figures from DHS/ICE and California officials; numbers may evolve with new releases