By Madelyn Snider and Neel Lalchandani

The Trump Administration has deployed large numbers of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) agents to cities across the country as part of its mass deportation agenda. In December 2025, President Trump sent thousands of federal immigration agents to Minnesota, where they arrested thousands of people, including U.S. citizens, legal permanent residents, asylum applicants, and undocumented immigrants with no criminal history.[1] Among them was ChongLy Scott Thao, a naturalized U.S. citizen, whose front door was forced open by agents before he was taken outside, half-naked, in freezing temperatures.[2]

Individuals detained during these operations have suffered “inhuman and degrading conditions, including overcrowded and dirty cells, continuous shackling, prolonged exposure to bright lights, and being forced to sleep on cold floors without beds or bedding, and lack of access to adequate health care.”[3] In Baltimore, the George H. Fallon Federal Building drew national attention after video footage showed dozens of people confined in an ICE holding room, and lawmakers who inspected the facility reported disturbing conditions.[4]

The law provides mechanisms to hold law enforcement officers accountable for this brutal and inhumane treatment of immigrants and their communities. As immigration enforcement efforts continue to intensify, it is critical for individuals to understand their rights and legal avenues for relief.

Police misconduct cases are often litigated under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a cause of action against any person acting under color of state law who deprives another person of rights and privileges secured by the Constitution. Section 1983, however, applies only to state and local officials; it does not provide a cause of action against federal officers, including ICE agents acting under federal authority. Some state police officers are cooperating with ICE to conduct raids in communities.[5] In these cases, the state police officers may be liable under Section 1983. But apart from these cases of cooperation between state and federal agents, federal immigration enforcement officials often operate outside the purview of state and local law enforcement.

Even though Section 1983 claims cannot be brought against federal agents, the Supreme Court recognized a limited implied cause of action for constitutional violations by federal officials in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics.[6] In Bivens, the Court held that a man could seek money damages after federal narcotic agents conducted a warrantless search and arrest, violating his constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment.[7] Bivens actions, however, are only recognized in very narrow circumstances. For example, the Supreme Court declined to extend Bivens in numerous contexts, including claims arising from the prolonged, abusive detention of individuals in the wake of 9/11^[8] and claims involving misconduct by a border patrol agent.[9]

Fortunately, there are other legal mechanisms to seek justice. The Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) helps fill part of the accountability gap for the misconduct of federal immigration enforcement agents. If you have been subjected to a violent or traumatic encounter with ICE officers, you may be entitled to monetary relief under the FTCA. The FTCA is a federal law that provides that the United States shall be liable for tort claims in the same manner and to the same extent as an individual.^[10] This waiver of sovereign immunity means that if you or a loved one has suffered injury, loss of property, and/or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of a federal employee acting within the scope of his or her employment, the FTCA allows you to seek monetary compensation for the harm suffered.[11] Common torts include negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress. While typically you cannot bring an intentional tort case against the United States, if your injury arises from the acts or omissions of federal investigative or law enforcement officers (like an ICE officer) the FTCA does permit claims such as assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, etc.[12]

FTCA claims may arise from a wide range of conduct committed by ICE agents, such as: (1) physical abuse during arrest; (2) physical or mental abuse during immigration detention; (3) destruction of property during arrest; (4) forced family separation; (5) false imprisonment; and (6) medical neglect during detention or while in the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement.[13]

The first step in suing the United States government under FTCA is to file a claim with the federal agency. You must file your administrative claim within two years of the conduct that forms the basis of your claim. For example, if you were physically harmed during an ICE arrest and want to bring a claim under the FTCA, you need to file your claim with ICE no later than two years after the arrest. Retained counsel can advise you on the viability of your claim and the types of supporting documentation to include with the Standard Form 95, which is the form submitted to the federal agency to detail your claim for damage, injury, or death.[14]

After you file a complaint with the relevant federal agency, you must wait six months for the agency to adjudicate your case.[15] The agency may decide to discuss a settlement with you and your attorney, deny your claim, or ignore your claim. After six months, if the agency has denied or ignored your claim, you can initiate a lawsuit in a federal district court. Although suing the United States government can seem daunting, experienced federal litigators like the attorneys at BGL are prepared to help you seek justice.

If you have experienced an adverse encounter with ICE and would like to discuss your legal options, please contact Brown, Goldstein & Levy today. BGL has successfully obtained a settlement agreement with the United States on behalf of clients who suffered forced family separation after crossing the southern border. Since Brown, Goldstein & Levy’s inception in 1982, we have focused our attention, talent, and experience on championing the civil and human rights of people no matter their race, gender, national origin, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Our lawyers have built a national reputation for advancing civil rights through strategic litigation and are committed to holding wrongdoers accountable.

This blog was primarily authored by BGL summer associate Madelyn Snider. At the time of publication, Madelyn is a rising 3L at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law, where she has worked as a Student Attorney in the Federal Appellate Immigration Clinic. She is Co-President of the Maryland Public Interest Law Project (MPILP), Captain of the National Trial Team, and a member of the Immigration Law and Policy Association. Last summer, she interned with Aragon Law where she worked with clients on their removal defense claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

[1] Human Rights Watch, A Manufactured Crisis (June 18, 2026), https://www.hrw.org/report/2026/06/18/a-manufactured-crisis/minnesota-communities-terrorized-by-the-federal-government.

[2] Ernesto Londoño, ICE Arrest of Man in His Underwear on Frigid Day Prompts Investigation, N.Y. Times (Apr. 13, 2026) https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/13/us/ice-minnesota-arrest-immigration-investigation.html.

[3] Human Rights Watch, supra note 1.

[4] JT Moodee Lockman & Dennis Valera, Maryland congressional members find empty Baltimore ICE holding rooms during unannounced visit, CBS News (Mar. 10, 2026), https://www.cbsnews.com/baltimore/news/maryland-ice-facility-conditions-lawmakers-concerns/.

[5] See U.S. Immigr. & Customs Enf’t, Partner with ICE Through the 287(g) Program (last visited June 29, 2026), https://www.ice.gov/287g.

[6] 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

[7] Id. at 397.

[8] Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. 120, 145 (2017).

[9] Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482, 493 (2022).

[10] See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671–2680.

[11] See 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1).

[12] See id. at § 2680(h).

[13] See, e.g., Sara Tenenbaum, Residents of South Shore apartment building in military-style immigration raid file tort claim against DHS, CBS News (May 13, 2026), https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/south-shore-apartment-building-military-style-immigration-raid-tort-claim-dhs/ (violent immigration raid); Michelle Fisher, Woman livestreams ICE detainment as agents smash car window in El Monte: ‘Lord, please protect me’, ABC 7 (Jan. 23, 2026), https://abc7.com/post/woman-livestreams-ice-detainment-agents-smash-car-window-el-monte/18513531/ (destruction of property).

[14] See 28 C.F.R. § 14.2.

[15] See 28 U.S. Code § 2675.