Gonzalez v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security – Challenging ICE’s de facto policy of failing to return property seized from people in civil immigration detention

When the government obtains someone’s property, it must return those items when its interest in them expires, even if it initially took control of the items lawfully. This means that if the government seizes a person’s property incident to an arrest, it must return the items that are not contraband, not evidence, and not needed for some other legitimate governmental purpose. The Fourth Amendment requires nothing less. And, when it’s the federal government that obtains someone’s property, the Administrative Procedure Act’s ban on arbitrary and capricious conduct imposes the same mandate.

ICE routinely flouts this obligation. It has adopted what amounts to a de facto policy of failing to return property seized from people it detained for civil immigration purposes long after any plausible governmental interest in the items expired. This case challenges ICE’s conduct on behalf of seven people and a class of similarly situated individuals. The named plaintiffs were all detained in ICE custody, stripped of important property, and still have not received all their items at least four months after their release. ICE failed to return Employment Authorization Documents and other important documents, along with items such as cell phones and car keys. As a result, the plaintiffs have lost work opportunities, feared going out in public (because they don’t have identification, which could lead ICE to detain them again), and suffered other forms of personal and economic hardship.

The plaintiffs bring this case to regain the items ICE withheld from them and ensure that the agency comports with its legal duties when handling property in the future.