Ohio lawsuits challenge ICE detention policies, demand jail records

(GEAUGA COUNTY, OHIO) The ACLU of Ohio is pressing county sheriffs for transparency on immigration detention, and the state’s highest court just cleared the way. In August 2025, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that a lawsuit against the Geauga County Sheriff’s Office can proceed, allowing a public records case to move forward over access to documents about local cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The decision adds momentum to a broader push in Ohio to obtain public records about how people are held in immigration detention, what it costs, and who is involved in day-to-day operations.

The ACLU of Ohio filed separate lawsuits targeting the Geauga County Sheriff’s Office (May 2025) and the Seneca County Sheriff’s Office (August 2025). The filings seek contracts, emails, and other records tied to ICE, along with details about how immigrants are being detained, facility locations, conditions, costs, and population numbers. The group says the answers belong to the public, particularly in counties that have chosen to partner with federal authorities on immigration enforcement.

Freda Levenson, the ACLU of Ohio’s chief legal officer, said the goal is basic accountability. “Taxpayers, residents of Seneca County have a right to know how their law enforcement officers are being deployed, how their facilities are being utilized, how the money is being spent,” she said. The organization cites humanitarian, legal, and financial worries, pointing to reports of poor conditions in some facilities and growing concern about who is placed in immigration detention and for how long.

Ohio’s detention network and 287(g) agreements

Six jails in Ohio currently serve as ICE detention centers, including the Geauga County Safety Center and the Seneca County Jail. The other four are the Butler County Sheriff’s Office in Hamilton, the Corrections Center of Northwest Ohio in Stryker, the Mahoning County Justice Center, and the Northeast Ohio Correctional Facility in Youngstown. These facilities form the backbone of immigration detention in the state, moving people in and out on ICE holds, court hearing dates, and transfers to other centers.

Across Ohio, five sheriff’s offices have signed 287(g) contracts with ICE. These agreements allow local deputies to perform certain federal immigration functions after ICE training and supervision. The counties with active 287(g) deals are:

• Butler
• Fayette
• Lake
• Portage
• Seneca (signed February 2025)

For readers seeking official background on these partnerships, ICE’s program overview is available at the ICE 287(g) Program.

The ACLU’s lawsuits focus on what those agreements and detention contracts mean for residents and for the individuals held inside these jails. The filings argue that the public needs to see the paperwork—how beds are allocated, how much counties are paid, who pays for medical care, and how complaints are handled. According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the scale of these local-federal arrangements in Ohio makes public documents central to any fair look at immigration detention, especially as more counties weigh the costs and responsibilities that come with 287(g) partnerships.

Ruling breathes life into transparency claims

The Ohio Supreme Court’s August 2025 decision did not decide the underlying dispute but confirmed that the ACLU’s public records case against the Geauga County Sheriff’s Office can continue. That ruling is notable in a field where document requests often stall for months as agencies contest what must be released. The court action now puts pressure on county officials to either produce the records or explain why the law allows withholding some items.

Advocates say the public records at issue are not abstract. In practical terms, the documents show day-to-day power and money flows:

• Who authorizes immigration holds
• The standards used for housing and segregation
• How grievances are processed
• Whether local tax dollars cover services not fully reimbursed by federal payments

For families, these records can also help explain why a loved one was transferred, why medical care was delayed, or why bond was not considered.

“Taxpayers, residents of Seneca County have a right to know how their law enforcement officers are being deployed, how their facilities are being utilized, how the money is being spent.” — Freda Levenson, ACLU of Ohio chief legal officer

National legal backdrop on bond and due process

Ohio’s transparency push sits within a wider national debate over detention and due process. In 2025, federal courts in Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island heard class-action challenges to the systematic denial of bond hearings for people in immigration detention. Those cases argue that denying hearings violates constitutional and statutory due process rights.

While these lawsuits target federal practice rather than state records, they underscore how access to information — and to court review — can shape someone’s chances to live with family, find a lawyer, and fight their case outside a cell.

Ohio’s disputes are narrower in scope but closely tied to these larger concerns. If counties withhold contracts and communications, the public cannot see whether local law enforcement is taking on federal roles without clear guardrails. Transparency is also essential for measuring conditions inside facilities — such as:

• Use of solitary confinement
• Access to medication
• Availability of language services
• Whether local policies allow for regular attorney visits

What is at stake for counties and families

The ACLU of Ohio says the stakes are local as well as legal:

• Fiscal impact
  • Whether ICE payments cover all costs (staffing, healthcare, transportation)
  • How any shortfall affects county budgets
• Public safety and trust
  • Whether shifting officers to immigration duties under 287(g) changes response times or community relations
• Conditions and oversight
  • Clarity on facility rules, access to phones and lawyers, medical screening, and complaint pathways

For people held in immigration detention, basic data can be life-changing. Knowing where someone is held, how to contact them, and which court will hear their case are immediate needs. Records about population numbers and policies can also inform legal challenges when detained individuals report appalling conditions.

Without timely public records, families and attorneys often rely on word of mouth, delayed letters, or incomplete online locator tools.

Next steps in the Ohio cases

With the Ohio Supreme Court allowing the Geauga case to proceed, the lower court process now turns to:

1. Document production timelines
2. Any claimed exemptions or redactions
3. Potential appeals depending on rulings at lower levels

The Seneca County case, filed in August 2025, follows a similar track. The ACLU of Ohio has indicated it will continue pressing for full disclosure of contracts, communications, and operational records tied to ICE, and will challenge redactions it believes violate state law.

Legal observers note two possible outcomes:

• Court-ordered disclosure could set a practical blueprint for other counties, prompting release of bed rates, staffing plans, and incident logs.
• A ruling that allows broad secrecy could chill records requests statewide.

For now, the public debate in Ohio centers on whether local jails should act as federal detention hubs without making the full terms public. County leaders who support these partnerships say they follow the law and meet federal standards. Civil rights advocates counter that compliance claims are impossible to verify without the complete paper trail and regular reporting.

As the litigation unfolds, key policy questions remain:

• When local agencies hold people for federal immigration purposes, what must they reveal about contracts, conditions, and costs?
• How should courts balance privacy exemptions with the community’s right to know?

The next filings in Geauga and Seneca counties will test those lines — and determine how much Ohioans can see inside their own immigration detention system.