1

PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 12-3991

_____________

ERNESTO GALARZA,

Appellant

v.

MARK SZALCZYK; CITY OF ALLENTOWN;

LEHIGH COUNTY; GREG MARINO;

CHRISTIE CORREA

_____________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(Civil Action No. 10-cv-6815)

District Judge: Hon. James Knoll Gardner

_____________

Argued: October 10, 2013

Before: FUENTES, COWEN, and BARRY, Circuit Judges.

(Opinion Filed: March 4, 2014)
2

Mary Catherine Roper, Esq.

Molly M. Tack-Hooper, Esq.

American Civil Liberty Union Foundation of Pennsylvania

P.O. Box 40008

Philadelphia, PA 19106

Omar C. Jadwat, Esq.

Esha Bhandari, Esq.

American Civil Liberties Union Foundation

Immigrants’ Rights Project

125 Broad Street, 18th Floor

New York, NY 10004

Jonathon H. Feinberg, Esq. 

Kairy, Rudovsky, Messing & Feinberg LLP

718 Arch Street, Suite 501 South

Philadelphia, PA 19106

Cecilia Wang, Esq.

Katherine Desormeau, Esq. [ARGUED]

American Civil Liberties Union Foundation

Immigrants’ Rights Project

39 Drumm Street

San Francisco, CA 94111

Seith Kreimer, Esq.

3400 Chestnut Street

Philadelphia, PA 19104

Attorneys for Appellant Ernesto Galarza
3

Thomas M. Caffrey, Esq. [ARGUED]

532 Walnut Street

Allentown, PA 18101

Attorney for Appellee Lehigh County

Christopher N. Lasch, Esq.

University of Denver Envirorment Center

Environmental Law Clinic

2255 East Evans Avenue

Suite 335

Denver, CO 80298

Rebecca A. Sharpless, Esq.

University of Miami School of Law

E257

1311 Miller Drive

Coral Gables, FL 33146

Attorneys for Amicus Appellant Law Professors and Scholars 

who Teach, Research, and Practice in the Area of 

Immigration and Nationality Law and Criminal Law

Andrew C. Nichols, Esq.

Winston & Strawn

1700 K Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 2006

Attorney for Amicus Appellant National Immigration Project 

of the National Lawyers Guild

_____________

OPINION OF THE COURT

_____________
4

FUENTES, Circuit Judge.

Ernesto Galarza is a U.S. citizen who was arrested for

a drug offense, posted bail, and instead of being released, was

held in custody by Lehigh County under an immigration 

detainer issued by federal immigration officials. Three days 

after Galarza posted bail, immigration officials learned that he 

was a U.S. citizen. The detainer was withdrawn and Galarza 

was released. Galarza then filed this § 1983 action against, in 

relevant part, Lehigh County, contending that Lehigh County 

detained Galarza without probable cause for more than 48 

hours, without notice of the basis of his detention or the 

ability to contest it. The District Court dismissed the 

complaint against Lehigh County on the basis that it could not 

be held responsible for Galarza’s detention because it was 

compelled to follow the immigration detainer. On appeal,

Galarza argues that under a plain reading of the relevant 

federal regulation, immigration detainers are permissive and,

to hold otherwise, would violate the anti-comandeering 

principles inherent in the Tenth Amendment. We agree with 

Galarza that immigration detainers do not and cannot compel 

a state or local law enforcement agency to detain suspected 

aliens subject to removal. Accordingly, we vacate and remand 

for further proceedings.
5

I. BACKGROUND1

This case arises out of Ernesto Galarza’s detention by 

the Allentown Police Department and the Lehigh County 

Prison in November 2008. Galarza is a U.S. Citizen, born in 

Perth Amboy, New Jersey. He is a Hispanic man of Puerto 

Rican heritage. On November 20, 2008, Galarza was 

performing construction work on a house in Allentown, 

Pennsylvania. Sometime that day, the contractor on the 

construction site sold cocaine to an undercover Allentown 

Police detective, Christie Correa. Detective Correa arrested 

the contractor, along with Galarza and two other employees 

who were working at the site. All were charged with 

conspiracy to deliver cocaine in violation of Pennsylvania 

law. Two of the other workers arrested were citizens of the 

Dominican Republic, and the third was a citizen of Honduras. 

At the time of Galarza’s arrest, he had a wallet, which 

contained his Pennsylvania driver’s license, his Social 

Security Card, a debit card, and his health insurance card. 

After his arrest, Galarza was detained by the Allentown 

Police Department. The Criminal Complaint prepared by 

Correa at the time of Galarza’s arrest listed Galarza’s place of 

birth as Perth Amboy, N.J. and contained Galarza’s Social 

Security Number and date of birth. In accordance with 

 

1

The District Court had federal question jurisdiction over this 

case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This Court has appellate 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because we are 

reviewing the appeal of a grant of a motion to dismiss under 

Rule 12(b)(6), our review is plenary. Great W. Mining & 

Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d 159, 163 (3d 

Cir. 2010). For the same reason, we state the facts in the 

amended complaint in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party below, Galarza. See Grammer v. John J. Kane 

Reg’l Ctrs.-Glen Hazel, 570 F.3d 520, 523 (3d Cir. 2009).
6

Allentown’s policy to contact Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (“ICE”)2 whenever persons arrested are 

suspected of being “aliens subject to deportation,” Correa 

called ICE and provided immigration officials with Galarza’s 

name, date and place of birth, ethnicity, and Social Security 

number. Galarza contends that, by making this call, Correa

gave ICE reason to believe that she suspected Galarza had 

given false information about his identity.

That evening, Galarza was transported to Lehigh 

County Prison and his bail was set at $15,000. The following 

morning, Friday, November 21, Galarza went through the 

booking process, and during this process, he told prison 

officials that he was born in New Jersey. The officials took 

his wallet, containing his driver’s license, Social Security 

Card, debit card, and health insurance card.

At some point that day, ICE Agent Mark Szalczyk, 

acting on the information relayed by Correa, filed an 

immigration detainer with Lehigh County Prison. The 

detainer described Galarza as a suspected “alien” and citizen 

of the Dominican Republic. The detainer read: 

Investigation has been initiated to determine 

whether this person is subject to 

removal/deportation from the United States. . . .

 

2

ICE is the investigative arm of the Department of Homeland 

Security (“DHS”). DHS assumed the responsibilities of the 

former Immigration and Naturilization Service (“INS”) in 

2002. See Homeland Security Act of 2002, 6 U.S.C. § 101 et 

seq.
7

It is requested that you: Please accept this notice 

as a detainer. This is for notification purposes 

only. . . . Federal regulations (8 CFR 287.7) 

require that you detain the alien for a period not 

to exceed 48 hours (excluding Saturdays, 

Sundays and Federal holidays) to provide 

adequate time for ICE to assume custody of the 

alien. You may notify ICE by calling (610) 374-

0743 during business hours or 802 872-6020 

after hours in an emergency. 

App. at 105. The detainer was accompanied by neither a 

warrant, an affidavit of probable cause, nor a removal order. 

That same day, a surety company posted bail for Galarza, and 

a Lehigh County Prison official told Galarza that he would be 

released. Shortly thereafter, the same official informed

Galarza that he would not be released because he was the 

subject of a detainer.

When Galarza protested that there should be no 

detainer preventing his release, the official told Galarza that 

he would have to wait through the weekend until Monday, 

November 24 to speak with a counselor. Galarza had not been 

interviewed by ICE or provided with a copy of the detainer. It 

was not until that Monday, three days after his arrest, that a

Lehigh County Prison counselor told Galarza for the first time 

that the detainer holding him was an immigration detainer 

filed by ICE. Galarza immediately protested that he was a 

U.S. Citizen, and he urged the counselor to retrieve his wallet 

from the property room in order to look at Galarza’s driver’s 

license and Social Security Card, but the counselor refused. 

Shortly thereafter, Galarza met with two ICE officers, who 

questioned him extensively about his statement that he was 

born in New Jersey. Galarza gave the immigration officials

his Social Security Number and date of birth. The officials

left and returned to inform Galarza that the detainer was 
8

being lifted. The detainer was in fact removed at 2:05 pm on 

Monday, November 24. Lehigh County did not release him

until more than six hours later, at about 8:30 pm. Galarza was 

eventually acquitted by a jury of the charge stemming from 

his November 20, 2008 arrest.

Galarza filed two complaints: the first against Lehigh 

County, the City of Allentown, and various individual federal 

and municipal defendants for violations of his constitutional 

rights, and the second against the United States under the 

Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). 

These cases were consolidated. All defendants in the 

consolidated case, except the United States, moved to dismiss 

under Rule 12(b)(6). Galarza v Szalczyk, 2012 WL 1080020, 

at *1 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 30, 2012). The District Court held that 

the claims against ICE Agent Szalczyk and Allentown 

Detective Correa, for violations of the Fourth Amendment 

and the Equal Protection Clause, could go forward and that 

these officials were not entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 

*2. The District Court dismissed a procedural due process 

claim against ICE Agent Szalczyk on qualified immunity 

grounds and dismissed all claims against another ICE official, 

the City of Allentown, and Lehigh County. Id. 

In relevant part, the District Court determined that 

Galarza’s continued detention after he posted bail constituted 

a seizure within the Fourth Amendment and that the seizure 

was unsupported by probable cause. Id. at *9-14. Specifically, 

the District Court found that Galarza had stated a Fourth 

Amendment claim against Correa and Szalczyk because these 

officers lacked probable cause to issue an immigration 

detainer. The District Court reasoned: “[t]he fact that Mr. 

Galarza is Hispanic and was working at a construction site 

with three other Hispanic men—two of whom are citizens of 

foreign countries and another who claimed to have been born 

in Puerto Rico but is a citizen of the Dominican Republic—
9

does not amount to probable cause to believe that Mr. Galarza 

is an alien not lawfully present in the United States.” Id. at 

*14. It also denied these officers’ motions to dismiss these 

claims on grounds of qualified immunity. Id. at *14-15. 

However, the District Court dismissed the Fourth 

Amendment and procedural due process claims against 

Lehigh County on the ground that “neither of the policies 

identified in plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is 

unconstitutional [because] both are consistent with federal 

statutes and regulations.” Id. at *18. In doing so, the District 

Court relied on 8 C.F.R. § 287.7, concluding that detainers 

issued pursuant to this regulation impose mandatory 

obligations on state or local law enforcement agencies 

(“LEA”s), including municipalities, to follow such a detainer 

once it is received. Id. at *19. The District Court also 

dismissed Galarza’s procedural due process claim on the 

ground that Lehigh County complied with the federal

regulation setting the time limits on detention because it did 

not hold Galarza for more than 48 hours, not including 

weekends. Id. The Court then dismissed the procedural due 

process claim against Szalczyk on grounds of the qualified 

immunity doctrine, noting that “even if the period of 

detention specified by the regulation were found to be 

unconstitutional, it would not be clear to every reasonable 

officer that the detention for a period expressly provided by

federal regulation was unlawful.” Id. at *18. 

Following the issuance of the District Court opinion, 

Galarza reached a settlement with the remaining individual 

defendants, the City of Allentown, and the United States, 

resulting in a final order dismissing the case as to all 

defendants. Galarza appeals only the dismissal of his 

complaint against Lehigh County.
10

II. DISCUSSION

Galarza’s claims against Lehigh County arise under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. To establish municipal liability under § 1983, 

Galarza must plead two elements: first, that he was deprived 

of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the 

Constitution and laws, and, second that the deprivation of 

those rights was caused by an official government policy or 

custom. Mulholland v. Gov’t Cnty. of Berks, Pa., 706 F.3d 

227, 238 (3d Cir. 2013). Regarding his Fourth Amendment 

rights, Galarza contends that his detention resulted from

Lehigh County’s stated policy and practice of enforcing all 

immigration detainers received from ICE, regardless of 

whether ICE had, or even claimed to have, probable cause to 

detain the suspected immigration violator. To support his 

claim, Galarza contends that: (1) when a Lehigh County 

Prison counselor first told Galarza that he had been held on an 

immigration detainer, the official refused to look into 

Galarza’s stated proof that he was a U.S. Citizen, instead 

waiting for ICE officers to arrive; (2) Lehigh County Prison 

honored the ICE detainer in this case on less than probable 

cause; and (3) ICE has a history of issuing and then 

cancelling improper ICE detainers lodged against inmates at 

the Lehigh County Prison. Regarding his procedural due 

process claim, Galarza contends that, under Lehigh County’s 

policies, he was held for three days without any notice of the 

basis for his detention or a meaningful opportunity to explain 

that he was a U.S. Citizen, despite his repeated requests to 

contest his detention. 

At oral argument, counsel for Lehigh County conceded 

that the policies as alleged would be unconstitutional, and that 

Lehigh County’s sole basis for seeking dismissal of Galarza’s 

claims is the allegedly mandatory nature of ICE detainers. In 

this light, the only question on appeal is whether Galarza has 
11

sufficiently pleaded facts to support his claims that Lehigh

County’s unconstitutional policies or customs caused the 

deprivations of his Fourth Amendment and procedural due 

process rights.

A. Interpretation of 8 C.F.R. § 287.73

The parties’ dispute centers on whether immigration 

detainers issued pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 287.7 impose 

mandatory obligations on state and local LEAs to detain 

suspected aliens subject to removal. The regulation at issues 

provides, in relevant part, as follows: 

 

3

It is true, as the dissent points out, that neither the U.S. 

Government or any of its agencies continues to be a party in 

this appeal. However, as the dissent also recognizes, the U.S. 

Government, as well as two of its agents, were parties to this 

case when the District Court articulated the principle that we 

review here. See Galarza v. Szalczyk, 10-cv-6815, Docs. 96 & 

99 (July 26, Aug. 22, 2012, E.D. Pa.) (orders dismissing the 

claims against ICE Agent Scalczyk and the U.S. 

Government); Galarza, 2012 WL 1080020 , at * 22 

(dismissing claims against ICE Agent Gregory Marino). In 

any event, as further explained supra, Part II.A., we doubt 

that the U.S. Government and its immigration agencies would 

disagree with our interpretation of the regulation. In fact, the 

Office of Immigration Litigation of the Department of Justice 

representing Janet Napolitano, then Secretary of the 

Department of Homeland Security, and other federal officials, 

admitted in a request for admission in a recent litigation that 

“ICE has no legal authority to require state o[r] local law 

enforcement to detain an individual during the 48-hour 

detention period.” Supp. App. at 8 (Apr. 5, 2013); see Jose 

Jimenez Moreno v. Janet Napolitano,11-cv-5452 (N.D. Ill., 

Nov. 8, 2011) (date of case filing).
12

(a) Detainers in general. Detainers are issued 

pursuant to sections 236 and 287 of the Act and 

this chapter 1. Any authorized immigration 

officer may at any time issue a Form I–247, 

Immigration Detainer–Notice of Action, to any 

other Federal, State, or local law enforcement 

agency. A detainer serves to advise another law 

enforcement agency that the Department seeks 

custody of an alien presently in the custody of 

that agency, for the purpose of arresting and 

removing the alien. The detainer is a request 

that such agency advise the Department, prior to 

release of the alien, in order for the Department 

to arrange to assume custody, in situations 

when gaining immediate physical custody is 

either impracticable or impossible.

. . .

(d) Temporary detention at Department request. 

Upon a determination by the Department to 

issue a detainer for an alien not otherwise 

detained by a criminal justice agency, such 

agency shall maintain custody of the alien for a 

period not to exceed 48 hours, excluding 

Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays in order to 

permit assumption of custody by the 

Department.

8 C.F.R. § 287.7(a), (d) (emphasis added). Lehigh County 

argues that the phrase “shall maintain custody” contained in 

§ 287.7(d) means that detainers issued under § 287.7 are 

mandatory. Lehigh County acknowledges that § 287.7(d) is 

titled “Temporary detention at Department request” and that 

§ 287.7(a) provides that “[t]he detainer is a request.”

However, Lehigh County maintains this language is 

overshadowed by the use of the word “shall” in § 287.7(d). 
13

According to Lehigh County, the word “shall” means that the 

“request” is not really a request at all, but an order. Meaning, 

Lehigh County cannot be held responsible for Galarza’s 

three-day detention after he posted bail. Galarza argues that 

the word “shall” serves only to inform an agency that 

otherwise decides to comply with an ICE detainer that it 

should hold the person no longer than 48 hours.

We believe that Galarza’s interpretation is correct. The 

words “shall maintain custody,” in the context of the 

regulation as a whole, appear next to the use of the word 

“request” throughout the regulation. Given that the title of 

§ 287.7(d) is “Temporary detention at Department request” 

and that § 287.7(a) generally defines a detainer as a “request,”

it is hard to read the use of the word “shall” in the timing 

section to change the nature of the entire regulation. Cf. 

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 234 

(1998) (observing that a statute’s title and a section’s heading 

may be considered in resolving doubt about a provision’s 

meaning). 

However, even if we credit that the use of the word 

“shall” raises some ambiguity as to whether detainers impose 

mandatory obligations, this ambiguity is clarified on 

numerous fronts. First, no U.S. Court of Appeals has ever 

described ICE detainers as anything but requests. Second, no 

provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 

U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., authorize federal officials to command 

local or state officials to detain suspected aliens subject to 

removal. Lastly, all federal agencies and departments having

an interest in the matter have consistently described such 

detainers as requests. We will address each of these factors in 

turn. 

First is the case law. All Courts of Appeals to have 

commented on the character of ICE detainers refer to them as 
14

“requests” or as part of an “informal procedure.” See, e.g., 

Ortega v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, 737 

F.3d 435, 438 (6th Cir. Dec. 10, 2013) (noting that federal 

immigration officials issue detainers to local LEAs “asking 

the institution to keep custody of the prisoner for the [federal 

immigration] agency or to let the agency know when the 

prisoner is about to be released”); Liranzo v. United States, 

690 F.3d 78, 82 (2d Cir. 2012) (noting that “ICE issued an 

immigration detainer to [jail] officials requesting that they 

release Liranzo only into ICE’s custody” so that he could be 

removed from the United States); United States v. Uribe-Rios, 

558 F.3d 347, 350 n.1 (4th Cir. 2009) (defining detainers as a 

“request that another law enforcement agency temporarily 

detain an alien” to permit immigration officials to assume 

custody (citing 8 C.F.R. § 287.7)); United States v. Female 

Juvenile, A.F.S., 377 F.3d 27, 35 (1st Cir. 2004) (noting that a 

“detainer . . . serves as a request that another law enforcement 

agency notify the INS before releasing an alien from 

detention” (citing 8 C.F.R. § 287.7(a))); Giddings v. 

Chandler, 979 F.2d 1104, 1105 n.3 (5th Cir. 1992) 

(describing the procedure under § 287.7 as “an informal [one]

in which the INS informs prison officials that a person is 

subject to deportation and requests that officials give the INS 

notice of the person’s death, impending release, or transfer to 

another institution”).

Second, Congress’s only specific mention of detainers 

appears in INA § 287, 8 U.S.C. § 1357(d). The Act does not 

authorize federal officials to command state or local officials 

to detain suspected aliens subject to removal. Moreover, in 

reviewing this statute, the Supreme Court has noted that

§ 1357(d) is a request for notice of a prisoner’s release, not a 

command (or even a request) to LEAs to detain suspects on 

behalf of the federal government. Arizona v. United States, 

132 S. Ct. 2492, 2507 (2012) (observing that “[s]tate officials 

can also assist the Federal Government by responding to 
15

requests for information about when an alien will be released 

from their custody. See § 1357(d).”).

Contrary to Lehigh County’s assertion, ICE’s (and its 

precursor INS’s) policy statements also hold persuasive 

weight in this context. See Mercy Catholic Med. Ctr. v. 

Thompson, 380 F.3d 142, 155 (3d Cir. 2004). Since at least 

1994, and perhaps as early as 1988, ICE (and its precursor 

INS) have consistently construed detainers as requests rather 

than mandatory orders. In 1994, when responding to 

comments provided in the process of administrative “Notice 

and Comment” before a “Final Rule” change amending 8 

C.F.R. § 287.7, the INS wrote that, “A detainer is the 

mechanism by which the Service requests that the detaining 

agency notify the Service of the date, time, or place of release 

of an alien who has been arrested or convicted under federal, 

state, or local law.” 59 Fed. Reg. 42406, 42407 (Aug. 17, 

1994). Moreover, in a 2010 policy memo, ICE describes a 

detainer as a “request that the LEA maintain custody of an 

alien who would otherwise be released for a period not to 

exceed 48 hours.”4This description is restated on ICE’s 

website under “Frequently Asked Questions” about ICE 

detainers in response to the specific question “What is an 

immigration detainer?”5In response to a local official’s letter 

asking whether “localities are required to hold individuals 

 

4

ICE, Interim Policy Number 10074.1: Detainers, ¶ 2.1 (Aug. 

2, 2010), available at

http://cironline.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files/ICEdetainer

policy.PDF (last visited Dec. 13, 2013).

5

ICE, ICE Detainers: Frequently Asked Questions, 

http://www.ice.gov/news/library/factsheets/detainer-faqs.htm 

(last visited Dec. 23, 2013) (noting that an immigration 

detainer serves, in relevant part, as a “request that the LEA 

maintain custody of an alien who would otherwise be released 

for a period not to exceed 48 hours”).
16

pursuant to [ICE detainers],” a senior ICE official responded: 

“ICE views an immigration detainer as a request that a law 

enforcement agency maintain custody of an alien who may 

otherwise be released[.]”6 And in a 2010 briefing to the 

Congressional Hispanic Caucus, agency representatives told 

congressional staff that “local [law enforcement] are not 

mandated to honor a detainer, and in some jurisdictions they

do not.”

7

These policy statements are also consistent with ICE’s 

(and previously INS’s) litigation position that detainers are 

requests or notifications. For example, in 1998, the INS

argued that a detainer it issued was “not a detainer but merely 

serve[d] to advise [a] correctional facility that the INS may 

find [an inmate] excludable and request[ed] that the 

institution inform the INS of Vargas’s expected release.”

Vargas v. Swan, 854 F.2d 1028, 1030 (7th Cir. 1988). 

Furthermore, the immigration agency there noted “that the 

face of the detainer states that it is ‘for notification purposes 

only,’” and that it was “nothing more than ‘an internal 

administrative mechanism,’ . . . accompanied by neither a 

warrant of arrest nor by an order to show cause.” Id.

 

6

Letter from David Venturella, Secure Communities 

Assistant Director, ICE, to Miguel Márquez, Santa Clara 

County Counsel, ¶ 2(a) (Sept. 27, 2010) (emphasis added), 

available at http://www.scribd.com/doc/38550589/ICELetterResponding-to-SCC-Re-S-Comm-9-28-10 (last visited Dec. 

23, 2013).

7

ICE FOIA 2674.020612, Draft Memorandum to David 

Venturella, Secure Communities Assistant Director, ICE, 

“Secure Communities Briefing (Congressional Hispanic 

Caucus)” at 3 (Oct. 28, 2010), available at 

http://altopolimigra.com/wpcontent/uploads/2011/12/ICEFOIA-2674.020612.pdf (last visited Dec. 23, 2013).
17

To rebut the evidence that detainers are not mandatory 

or commands to other LEAs, Lehigh County suggests that 

these statements are contradicted by the language of the 

detainer form that was issued in Galarza’s case. Lehigh

County’s argument here is similar to the one it made 

regarding the regulation itself: Because the detainer issued to 

Lehigh County stated that “Federal regulations (8 CFR 287.7) 

require that you detain the alien for a period not to exceed 48 

hours (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and Federal holidays),” 

the detainer was mandatory. App. at 105. Again, Lehigh 

County overlooks the first part of the detainer filed with 

Lehigh County, which read at the time, “It is requested that 

you: Please accept this notice as a detainer. This is for 

notification purposes only.” Id. (emphasis added). 

Lehigh County seeks to bolster its argument by 

highlighting the fact that the detainer forms were altered in 

2010 so that the word “require” does not appear anywhere on 

the current detainer form. The form now reads: “IT IS 

REQUESTED THAT YOU: Maintain custody of the subject 

for a period NOT TO EXCEED 48 HOURS.”8 We believe 

that, on its own, this alteration in the detainer form does not 

support Lehigh County’s conclusion that ICE’s position 

changed—the alteration is also consistent with the view that 

ICE was merely clarifying its detainer form to reflect its 

longstanding interpretation of the regulation. In short, the

position of federal immigration agencies has remained 

constant: detainers are not mandatory.

9

 

8 DHS, IMMIGRATION DETAINER-NOTICE OF 

ACTION, available at http://www.ice.gov/doclib/securecommunities/pdf/immigration-detainer-form.pdf (last visited

Dec. 23, 2013).

9

To further respond to Lehigh County’s argument that these 

policy statements and litigation positions should not be 
18

B. Constitutional Concerns

Even if there were any doubt about whether 

immigration detainers are requests and not mandatory orders 

to local law enforcement officials, settled constitutional law 

clearly establishes that they must be deemed requests. When 

confronted with two plausible interpretations of a statute, one 

which could require the Court to interpret the regulation as 

unconstitutional and one which poses no constitutional 

problem, we are obliged to adopt the latter interpretation, 

“unless such construction is plainly contrary to the intent of 

Congress.” Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Fla. Gulf Coast 

Bldg. & Const. Trades Council, 485 U.S. 568, 575 (1988).

Under the Tenth Amendment, immigration officials 

may not order state and local officials to imprison suspected 

aliens subject to removal at the request of the federal 

government. Essentially, the federal government cannot 

command the government agencies of the states to imprison 

persons of interest to federal officials.

 

relevant in our analysis, we note that the particular weight to 

give to ICE’s and INS’s policy statements depends on a 

number of factors. These include “the thoroughness evident in 

[their] consideration, the validity of [their] reasoning, [their] 

consistency with earlier and later pronouncements, and all 

those factors which give [them] power to persuade, if lacking 

power to control.” Mercy, 380 F.3d at 155 (internal quotation 

marks omitted). ICE’s and INS’s policy statements and 

litigation positions are probative here because they are 

internally consistent over a lengthy period of time and align 

with the most logical reading of the regulation, thus lending 

further support to our determination that ICE detainers are 

indeed permissive, not mandatory. 
19

As we have previously recognized, “all powers not 

explicitly conferred to the federal government are reserved to 

the states, a maxim reflected in the text of the Tenth 

Amendment.” Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n (“NCAA”) v. 

Governor of N.J., 730 F.3d 208, 227 (3d Cir. 2013). It follows 

that “any law that commandeers the legislative processes [and 

agencies] of the States by directly compelling them to enact 

and enforce a federal regulatory program is beyond the 

inherent limitations on federal power within our dual system.” 

Id. (quoting Hodel v. Va. Surface Mining & Reclamation 

Ass’n, 452 U.S. 264, 283 (1981)) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). In other words, a conclusion that a detainer issued 

by a federal agency is an order that state and local agencies 

are compelled to follow, is inconsistent with the anticommandeering principle of the Tenth Amendment.

On two occasions the Supreme Court has struck down 

portions of federal laws that compelled states or local state 

agencies on anti-commandeering grounds. The first case was 

New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), which 

concerned a federal law to regulate the disposal of radioactive 

wastes by the states. The most problematic aspect of this 

complex regulatory scheme was the requirement that a state 

“take title” to radioactive material, if that state could not 

arrange for disposal of the hazardous material within a 

specified date. Id. at 153-54. The Supreme Court struck down 

the “take title” provision based on the idea that “Congress 

may not simply ‘commandeer the legislative processes of the 

States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a 

federal regulatory program.’” Id. at 161 (quoting Hodel, 452 

U.S. at 288) (alterations omitted). As we stated in NCAA, the 

Court concluded that the “take title” provision did, in fact, 

“compel the states to either enact a regulatory program, or 

expend resources in taking title to the waste.” NCAA, 730 

F.3d at 229 (citing New York, 505 U.S. at 176). The Court 
20

also observed that “the anti-commandeering principle was 

designed, in part, to stop Congress from blurring the line of 

accountability between federal and state officials and from 

skirting responsibility for its choices by foisting them on the 

states.” Id. (citing New York, 505 U.S. at 168).

The Court next applied this anti-comandeering 

principle in Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), to 

invalidate provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence 

Prevention Act that compelled local authorities of certain 

states to conduct background checks on persons applying to 

purchase guns. Printz is relevant in determining whether 

federal officials can order local and state LEAs to hold 

suspected aliens subject to removal in detention on behalf of 

the federal government. The Court noted that, “[t]he power of 

the Federal Government would be augmented immeasurably 

if it were able to impress into its service—and at no cost to 

itself—the police officers of the 50 States.” Id. at 922. The 

Court concluded that Congress “may neither issue directives 

requiring the States to address particular problems, nor

command the States’ officers . . . to administer or enforce a 

federal regulatory program.” Id. at 935. The Court was clearly 

concerned that portions of the Brady Act required states to 

“absorb the financial burden of implementing a federal 

regulatory program” and “tak[e] the blame for its . . . 

defects.” Id. at 930.

In light of these principles, it is clear to us that reading 

§ 287.7 to mean that a federal detainer filed with a state or 

local LEA is a command to detain an individual on behalf of 

the federal govenment, would violate the anti-commandeering 

doctrine of the Tenth Amendment. As in New York and 

Printz, immigration officials may not compel state and local 

agencies to expend funds and resources to effectuate a federal 

regulatory scheme. The District Court’s interpretation of 

§ 287.7 as compelling Lehigh County to detain prisoners for 
21

the federal government is contrary to the Federal Constitution 

and Supreme Court precedents. 

There is no meaningful distinction between the Brady 

Act provisions and the regulation at issue here which would, 

according to Lehigh County, require state and local 

governments to spend public funds in order to detain suspects 

on behalf of the federal government for the 48-hour period. In 

fact, the federal government has made clear that local LEAs 

have to foot the bill, providing that “[n]o detainer issued as a 

result of a determination made under this chapter . . . shall 

incur any fiscal obligation on the part of the Department.” 

8 C.F.R. § 287.7(e). Even though, as the Amici Curiae Law 

Professors explain, the issue of commandeering is not one of 

degree, “[s]uch direct federal control over state officials far 

exceeds the regulatory regime Printz invalidated.” Br. for 

Law Professors at 14. 

Furthermore, the command to detain federal prisoners 

at state expense is exactly the type of command that has 

historically disrupted our system of federalism. As Galarza 

points out, the federal government has made requests to states 

to house federal prisoners since the Founding of the Republic, 

and such requests represent the quintessential type of 

cooperation sanctioned by the Framers. The Court in Printz

relied on this history in developing the contours of the 

concept of commandeering that must have existed at the time 

of the Constitution’s Framing. See Printz, 521 U.S. at 909-10

(discussing the practice of early Congress (1789-91) issuing 

recommendations to state legislatures to house federal 

prisoners and noting that when states failed to comply, 

Congress’s reaction was simply “to rent a temporary jail until 

provision for a permanent one could be made”). 

Because of this potential constitutional problem, and 

because Congress has made no mention in the INA that it 
22

intends for DHS to issue mandatory detainers, see supra Part 

II.A., we must read the regulation as authorizing only 

permissive requests that local LEAs keep suspected aliens 

subject to deportation in custody. In fact, in recognition of 

their right to refuse requests under § 287.7, a number of local 

governments, the District of Columbia, and now the state of 

California, have established official policies whereby they 

will only detain suspects pursuant to ICE detainers in 

situations where the suspect named in an immigration 

detainer has been convicted of or is charged with a serious 

crime.10

 

10 See, e.g., Santa Clara County, Cal., Board of Supervisors’ 

Policy Manual § 3.54, Civil Immigration Detainer Requests 

(resolution adopting § 3.54) (2010), available at

http://bit.ly/YiQ8y6 (“No County department, agency, officer, 

or employee shall use any County funds, resources, or 

personnel to investigate, question, apprehend, or arrest an 

individual solely for an actual or suspected civil violation of 

federal immigration law.”); Cook County, Ill., Ordinance 

§ 46-37, available at http://bit.ly/15SWpFY (“WHEREAS, 8 

CFR § 287.7 expressly provides that ICE detainers are merely 

‘requests’ that local law enforcement advise DHS when the 

individual is due to be released, and that the agency continue 

holding the individual beyond the scheduled time of release 

for up to 48 hours, excluding weekends and federal holidays, 

in order for ICE to arrange to assume custody ... (a) The 

Sheriff of Cook County shall decline ICE detainer requests 

unless there is a written agreement with the federal 

government by which all costs incurred by Cook County in 

complying with the ICE detainer shall be reimbursed.”); 

Chicago Municipal Code §§ 2-173-05, 2-173-042 (first 

adopted 2012), available at http://bit.ly/ZQxQFD (declining 

to honor detainers unless the subject of the investigation has 

an oustanding criminal warrant, has been convicted of a 

felony, has a felony charge pending, or has been identified as 
23

Thus, any remaining ambiguity must be resolved in 

favor of a constitutional reading of the regulation. In this 

case, that means we must read the regulation as authorizing 

only requests that state and local law enforcement agencies

detain suspected aliens subject to removal. 

III. CONCLUSION

For these reasons, we conclude that 8 C.R.F. § 287.7 

does not compel state or local LEAs to detain suspected 

aliens subject to removal pending release to immigration 

officials. Section 287.7 merely authorizes the issuance of 

detainers as requests to local LEAs. Given this, Lehigh

County was free to disregard the ICE detainer, and it 

therefore cannot use as a defense that its own policy did not 

cause the deprivation of Galarza’s constitutional rights. 

Accordingly, the District Court’s judgment dismissing 

Galarza’s complaint against Lehigh County is VACATED 

 

a known gang member); N.Y.C., N.Y., Administrative Code 

§ 9-131(first adopted 2012) (same, and adding a condition 

that a detainer could be honored for a terrorism suspect as 

well); City of Berkeley, California Council, Regular Meeting 

Annotated Agenda (Oct. 30, 2012), available at

http://bit.ly/WOmMfO (similar to N.Y.C. and Chicago

policies); D.C. Acts 19-442, Immigration Detainer 

Compliance Amendment Act of 2012, 59 D.C. Reg. 10153-55 

(same); Brent Begin, San Francisco County Jail Won’t Hold 

Inmates for ICE, SF EXAMINER (May 6, 2011) (describing

policy adopted by San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey 

to not honor detainers for those arrested for minor crimes). In 

fact, just recently, California adopted a statute limiting LEAs 

throughout the entire state from cooperating with ICE 

detainers. Cal Gov’t Code § 7282 et seq. (effective Jan. 1, 

2014). 
24

and the matter is REVERSED for proceedings consistent with 

this opinion. 
Galarza v. Lehigh County, No. 12-3991

BARRY, Circuit Judge, dissenting

I am deeply concerned that the United States has not 

been heard on the seminal issue in this appeal, an issue that 

goes to the heart of the enforcement of our nation’s 

immigration laws. And make no mistake about it. The 

conclusion reached by my friends in the Majority that 

immigration detainers issued pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 287.7 do 

not impose any obligation on state and local law enforcement 

agencies to detain suspected aliens subject to removal, but are 

merely requests that they do so, has enormous implications 

and will have, I predict, enormous ramifications. 

Maybe the Majority is right when it says that the 

language that the particular agency “shall maintain custody,” 

§ 287.7(d), is really only “a request,” § 287.7(a). And maybe 

the Majority is wrong. I’m simply not ready to make that 

call; indeed, I believe that it is a mistake to do so without the 

input of the United States, on whom the Opinion will impact 

most immediately and most profoundly. 1 And even aside 

from that impact will be the impact on state and local law 

enforcement agencies, not the least of which will be for them 

to figure out what hoops they will have to jump through to 

inform their decision as to whether or not to grant a particular 

“request.” Will, for example, they have to determine if, in the 

first instance, ICE had probable cause to issue the detainer? 

Will the detainee have a right to be heard? And, pray tell, 

how and when will they do all of that? And that’s just for 

starters. 

 

1

ICE issued 273,982 immigration detainers from October 1, 

2011 to September 30, 2012 (Fiscal Year 2012). In the first 

four months of Fiscal Year 2013, it issued 73,709 detainers, 

corresponding to an annualized figure of 221,124. See

Number of ICE Detainers Drops by 19 Percent. 

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse 

Univ. (July 25, 2013), 

http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/325/. These numbers, 

I recognize, cover all detainers issued by ICE, and not just 

those which direct a law enforcement agency to maintain 

custody over a suspected removable alien. 
2

This was, until now, a comparatively uncomplicated 

case brought by Mr. Galarza, who, as relevant here, was 

detained within the brief period of time set forth in § 287.7(d) 

after bail was posted on his criminal charges. The United 

States was not a party in this § 1983 action,2and the only 

defendants were Lehigh County, the City of Allentown and 

one of its detectives, and two ICE agents, named only in their 

individual capacities. Parenthetically, although the ICE 

agents were represented by counsel from the Department of 

Justice, counsel made it abundantly clear to the District Court 

that she did not represent ICE and represented only her 

clients. See, e.g., Tr. of Dec. 15, 2011 at 48-49. The District 

Court well understood that fact. Id. 

The sole appellee in this case is Lehigh County, whose 

only involvement with reference to the central issue before us 

on appeal is that Galarza was briefly housed in one of its 

prisons, and that it, through its prison, complied with the 

immigration detainer once the detainer kicked in. The 

County, not surprisingly, argued to the District Court why the 

“shall maintain custody” language was mandatory—it had, it 

said, no choice in the matter. Galarza, also not surprisingly,

argued that the language was not mandatory, and that the 

District Court’s erroneous conclusion to the contrary was the 

result of a “misunderstanding of immigration detainers” 

because of Lehigh County’s arguments, “not the federal 

government’s.” Appellant’s Br. at 23, 29. Indeed, Galarza 

concedes that the United States was not heard as to § 287.7 

nor even as to its “own statements” that immigration detainers 

 

2 The United States was named as a defendant in a separate 

negligence action filed by Galarza under the Federal Tort 

Claims Act. The central issue before us here was never 

squarely raised there, and neither the Majority nor Galarza 

suggests that it was or should have been. Although the FTCA 

action was subsequently consolidated with this § 1983 action, 

presumably so that they could be before one judge, not two, it 

was separately treated and resolved. Thus, it is only in the 

most technical sense that one can say, as the Majority says at 

note 3, that the “U.S. Government,” which it “doubt[s]” 

would disagree with its interpretation of § 287.7, was a 

“part[y] to this case” when the District Court articulated the 

principle before us on appeal. 
3

are requests, not orders. Id. at 29. Of course, we don’t know 

what the “federal government” would have argued—it was 

not in the case. 

And the record before the District Court on the central 

issue before us was barebones. In this connection, it bears 

emphasis that that issue, i.e. whether or not detainers issued 

pursuant to § 287.7 impose a mandatory obligation to detain 

on state and local law enforcement agencies, was but one of 

numerous issues raised in the District Court against the 

various defendants and combinations of defendants. The 

District Court issued an extremely thoughtful and very 

thorough 56-page Opinion, with its finding as to the issue 

before us essentially tucked away in little more than one 

paragraph near the end, see JA 55-56, undoubtedly because 

there had been no emphasis on the issue in the District Court 

and little record made as to it. 

In the face of all of this, the Majority, in a sweeping 

Opinion, has decided this enormously important issue. And it 

did not stop there. Rather, it went on to conclude that “[e]ven 

if there were any doubt about whether immigration detainers 

are requests and not mandatory orders,” to read § 287.7 to 

mean that a federal detainer is a command to a law 

enforcement agency to detain an individual would violate the 

anti-commandeering principle of the Tenth Amendment. 

Maj. Op. at 17. 

Maybe it would, and maybe it wouldn’t, even 

assuming, with no great confidence, that the Tenth 

Amendment issue should have been reached. Galarza did, 

indeed, raise the issue in the District Court. The County, 

however, never offered a full-throated response on the merits, 

or lack thereof, of that issue, arguing instead that the 

constitutionality of § 287.7 should be litigated in another, 

more appropriate, case. Not unimportantly, the District Court 

did not in its lengthy Opinion even mention, much less 

decide, anything to do with the Tenth Amendment. Very

importantly, the United States was not heard as to it. 

All of this makes me very uncomfortable. Given the 

posture of the case before the District Court, I’m not sure 

how, if at all, the United States could have been brought in. 
4

What I am sure of is that we have gone very far in this very 

important case without any input from the United States, and 

we should pull back now. For now, though, I’m not prepared 

to say, on what has essentially been a one-sided presentation,

that “shall” really doesn’t mean “shall” but, instead, means 

“please.” I respectfully dissent.