Oregon asks judge to dismiss Marion County ICE lawsuit over subpoenas

(OREGON, UNITED STATES) The State of Oregon has asked a federal judge to throw out Marion County’s lawsuit over ICE subpoenas, saying state law clearly blocks the county from sharing personal information about people on parole unless a judge orders it. Filed on October 17, 2025, the state’s motion argues the case is premature because no court has told Marion County to hand over anything, and the county faces no penalty for refusing at this stage.

The dispute began in August 2025, when Marion County received five administrative ICE subpoenas seeking addresses, phone numbers, and other personal details for individuals on parole for local crimes. Rather than respond, the county went to federal court to ask for a ruling on whether Oregon law requires, forbids, or allows the release of that information. According to the state, that request invites an advisory opinion—a kind of ruling courts avoid when no real legal clash is underway.

State lawyers say Oregon’s sanctuary laws, adopted nearly four decades ago and expanded since, control what local officials can do. The laws bar state and local agencies from using their resources to help federal immigration enforcement in most situations. The key exception, the state notes, is when a court issues an order. No such order exists here. That, Oregon argues, ends the matter for now.

As of October 22, 2025, the motion to dismiss remains pending. Marion County opposes the state’s filing, and the parties have not reached any agreement. The case is listed as federal case number 6:25-cv-01464-MC. For residents, the immediate takeaway is direct: Marion County is not currently required to give ICE the requested information unless a court orders it.

State’s Motion and Legal Framing

Oregon moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which challenges a court’s authority to hear a case. The state’s core arguments include:

• Lack of standing: Marion County has not suffered a concrete harm and faces no credible threat of sanctions for refusing ICE’s administrative subpoenas.
• Subpoenas ≠ court orders: Administrative ICE subpoenas are not court orders. Without judicial compulsion or a contempt threat, the state contends the county’s fears are hypothetical.
• Justiciability concerns: The county’s request, the state says, invites an advisory opinion—something federal courts generally avoid.

The motion cites federal precedent, including decisions like City & County of San Francisco v. Garland, to show courts have allowed state and local limits on cooperation with federal immigration enforcement to coexist with federal authority. In short, Oregon’s position is: federal immigration enforcement may continue, but state and local agencies do not have to assist unless required by law or a court.

At the heart of Oregon’s argument is its long-standing sanctuary framework, which restricts local participation in federal immigration actions and emphasizes that disclosure generally requires a court order.

Practical Effects for Marion County and Residents

This dispute has immediate, practical implications for public agencies, parolees, and their families:

• No current duty to comply: The state asserts Marion County is not legally obligated to provide the requested information without a court order.
• No sanctions without a court order: The county faces no contempt or similar penalties at this stage.
• Ongoing legal process: The federal judge’s ruling on the motion to dismiss will determine whether the case proceeds.

Why this matters for people on parole and families:

• Oregon’s rules are intended to keep local resources focused on state and local priorities, unless a court directs otherwise.
• This can reduce fear for families seeking services or reporting crimes, who may worry that interactions with local government could expose private data to immigration enforcement.
• Conversely, the federal government sees such information as relevant to public safety, creating tension between federal requests and state limits.

Legal Context and Likely Outcomes

Legal observers expect the case to turn on justiciability—whether the court should decide an issue that may be hypothetical at this point. Two main scenarios:

1. Judge grants motion to dismiss
   • The court finds Marion County’s claim premature.
   • Case ends now, and Marion County would remain protected by Oregon’s sanctuary laws unless and until a court order is issued.
2. Judge denies motion to dismiss
   • The court finds a sufficiently concrete dispute and proceeds to decide how Marion County must respond to ICE subpoenas under Oregon law.
   • That decision could clarify obligations for Marion County and other local agencies.

Community advocates and county staff should watch two important milestones:

1. Ruling on the motion to dismiss in case 6:25-cv-01464-MC.
2. Any future effort by ICE to obtain a court order, which would change the legal obligations and could compel Marion County to comply.

Administrative Subpoenas vs. Court Orders

A key factual and legal distinction underpins Oregon’s position:

• Administrative subpoenas are agency tools used to request information without judge approval.
• Court orders (with possible contempt consequences) require judicial action and carry enforcement mechanisms.

Oregon’s sanctuary framework limits the use of public resources to comply with administrative subpoenas unless an exception applies, such as a judicial order.

Important takeaway: Until a court orders otherwise, Marion County is not required to provide the requested information to ICE.

Broader Context

Sanctuary laws nationwide aim to draw a clear line between local services and federal immigration enforcement. Courts have often allowed these state and local limits to stand while federal authorities continue their enforcement work. Oregon’s filing follows that pattern: allow federal immigration enforcement to proceed, but don’t compel local agencies to help unless required by law or a judge.

The outcome of this case could influence how other Oregon counties respond to ICE administrative subpoenas and clarify the practical reach of Oregon’s sanctuary framework.

Additional Resources and Contact Information

Residents who want to learn more about Oregon’s sanctuary framework, often called the Sanctuary Promise Act, can read official guidance from the Oregon Department of Justice at this government resource: Oregon DOJ – Sanctuary Promise Act.

The Oregon DOJ’s Civil Rights Unit can be reached at (971) 673-1880 for general information.

Summary and Next Steps

• The State of Oregon has moved to dismiss Marion County’s lawsuit as premature under Rule 12(b)(1).
• As of October 22, 2025, the motion is pending and the parties have not settled.
• For now, Marion County is not required to comply with ICE’s administrative subpoenas unless a court orders it to do so.
• The case number to follow is 6:25-cv-01464-MC.
• Watch for the judge’s decision on the motion to dismiss and any subsequent ICE attempt to obtain a court order.