Ohio AG Yost Says Counties May Indefinitely Detain ICE Detainees Under Contracts

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost has concluded that counties holding detainees under contracts with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement can keep civil immigration detainees in jail for an indefinite period while their federal cases play out, removing any assumed 48-hour limit. In a formal opinion issued on August 26, 2025, Yost said that when an Ohio County has a valid agreement with ICE to provide “housing, care, and security,” those detainees may remain in custody through civil removal proceedings and, if ordered removed, until they are deported from the United States 🇺🇸. As of August 27, 2025, the opinion stands as the state’s legal guidance.

Yost’s opinion responded to a request from Butler County Prosecutor Mike Gmoser, who asked whether a county could face legal risk if it held people for more than 48 hours without criminal charges. The question followed a decision by Butler County Sheriff Richard Jones to sign a new ICE housing contract in February 2025. The Attorney General’s answer is sweeping: the 48-hour clock does not apply when detention occurs under a federal civil removal process and a county-ICE contract. The opinion clarifies how counties may partner with ICE without violating state limits once thought to apply.

Policy clarification and scope

The Attorney General distinguished between short-term civil holds—often called detainers—and detention under a formal ICE contract tied to removal proceedings. Earlier legal views in Ohio, including a 2007 opinion, had suggested that civil detainees should be released if ICE did not assume custody within 48 hours. Yost said those earlier statements didn’t address the specific case of county jails operating under an ICE contract during removal proceedings, which is a different legal setup.

“Federal law allows ICE to enter an agreement with a state or political subdivision, such as the county, to provide ‘housing, care, and security’ for aliens detained by ICE. Such detention is not limited to 48 hours. Rather, when an alien is arrested for violations of immigration law, the alien may be detained for civil removal proceedings ‘pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States.’ If the alien is ordered to be removed, detention could last until the person is deported.”

In practical terms, this means civil detainees held under these agreements can remain in county jail for months or even years while their cases move through the federal system, as long as the detention is tied to the removal process.

Yost’s view follows federal authority that lets ICE work with state and local facilities. While the opinion does not rewrite federal law, it tells counties how to align local practice with those federal rules inside Ohio jails. It is aimed at county leaders deciding whether to sign ICE contracts and at sheriffs managing day-to-day custody decisions for noncitizens in federal proceedings.

According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the opinion could prompt more counties to consider agreements with ICE because it lowers uncertainty about local authority to hold detainees beyond the 48-hour benchmark.

Immediate effects and key distinctions

Yost’s statement carries immediate effects for Ohio facilities now housing or planning to house ICE detainees. The most direct change is that there is no 48-hour limit when a county detains someone under a federal civil case with a valid contract in place.

Important warnings and limits:
– Lawfulness depends on the detention’s tie to the federal removal process. A county cannot use the opinion to hold someone outside that framework.
– The critical distinction is between:
– Contract-based detention during removal proceedings, and
– Short civil holds without a contract—the latter remain subject to different limits.

Local impact and legal risks

Butler County is at the front of this shift. Sheriff Richard Jones’s February 2025 contract with ICE triggered Prosecutor Gmoser’s request for legal clarity. County leaders wanted to know how far local facilities could go without exposing taxpayers to lawsuits.

Yost’s answer gives counties a green light to hold detainees long term when tied to civil removal, but it does not erase legal risk. Key concerns include:
– Due process objections from community groups and some legal scholars.
– Potential constitutional challenges arguing that civil confinement without a fixed end date may be limited.
– Increased scrutiny of detention conditions: medical care, access to lawyers, and access to hearings.
– Exposure to civil rights claims if detainees assert custody falls outside the contract or federal proceedings stall.

The Attorney General’s office framed the opinion as a reading of current federal authority rather than a policy push. Still, the opinion may change how counties think about ICE contracts: some see steady revenue; others worry about protests, staffing, and long-term legal exposure. For families of detainees, the ruling signals longer separations if relatives are moved from federal facilities to local jails while awaiting immigration decisions.

What the opinion says — procedural summary

Procedurally, Yost’s office set out how a county’s role works when a contract is in place:

1. The county signs a formal agreement with ICE to house federal civil detainees.
2. ICE transfers detainees into county custody under that agreement.
3. The county holds them for the length of civil removal proceedings, which can extend until a final decision or deportation is carried out.
4. The county provides “housing, care, and security” per the contract.

Counties that choose to partner with ICE should plan for operational tasks highlighted by the opinion:
– Maintain records showing each person’s custody ties to an active federal civil process.
– Be prepared for court oversight of long stays, including ensuring counsel access and case status updates.
– Monitor whether the federal link remains intact; if it breaks, the legal basis for custody may weaken quickly.

Policy ripple effects and likely responses

The opinion may encourage more cooperation agreements, expanding Ohio’s role in federal enforcement. It could also spark legal fights over detention length and conditions. Likely developments include:
– Civil rights groups watching closely and potentially suing when they believe people are held too long or outside contract scope.
– Lawmakers at the state or federal level possibly proposing new rules, depending on public reaction and court outcomes.
– Federal agencies, including ICE and the Department of Homeland Security, possibly issuing guidance to standardize contract terms if disputes arise.

Officials and the public can review federal background information through the official ICE site: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). While Yost’s opinion is rooted in state legal analysis, the federal framework governs the core question: whether ICE can place detainees in local facilities and for how long during removal cases. The opinion says the answer is yes, without a fixed 48-hour limit, when a county acts under a valid contract tied to those proceedings.

Community perspective and next steps

The debate is both legal and personal. In Ohio:
– County sheriffs now have clearer authority to work with ICE and hold detainees through the full arc of a civil case.
– Prosecutors have greater clarity on legal footing for such contracts.
– Families and advocates remain concerned about when prolonged civil detention becomes indefinite and whether that amounts to punishment without proper due process.

Those questions will shape:
– How counties draft and manage contracts,
– How judges view long detentions in immigration cases,
– How residents weigh the costs and benefits of such agreements.

For more information, contact or consult:
– Ohio Attorney General’s Office: official opinions and legal guidance.
– Butler County Sheriff’s Office: local procedures for ICE detainees.
– U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE): federal policy details and detention information.

Local news coverage from Cleveland.com, WCPO, Journal-News, Local12, and Ground News has reported on the opinion and reactions from officials and community members. Those reports align with the Attorney General’s written analysis and public statements from Butler County. Yost’s formal opinion now frames how Ohio counties can lawfully hold people in civil custody under ICE contracts, with the central point clear: counties may detain these individuals for indefinite periods, as long as the detention remains part of the federal removal process and the contract terms are followed.