Oregon — Attorney General Dan Rayfield has formally asked a federal court to dismiss Marion County’s lawsuit challenging Oregon’s sanctuary laws, arguing that the county has suffered no injury, lacks standing, and faces no legal consequences for following state law.
“For nearly four decades, Oregon’s sanctuary laws have prohibited state and local officials from using state resources to aid in federal immigration enforcement efforts,” the state’s motion opens. “Under those laws… a public body must decline certain requests for information from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) unless the government obtains a judicial order, after a neutral judge has had an opportunity to first review and determine whether the subpoena meets legal requirements.”
Rayfield’s office argues the system “is fully consistent with federal law and ensures that state and federal officials can carry out their public safety duties in a manner that respects both the rule of law and the dual sovereignty within our federal system.”
The state’s brief, filed October 20, 2025, seeks dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of jurisdiction. It emphasizes that counties “will not suffer any injury from complying with Oregon law by declining to respond to the federal administrative subpoenas,” because “ICE administrative subpoenas, unlike judicial subpoenas, are not self-enforcing.”
The filing contends that Marion County has suffered no “injury-in-fact” because ICE’s administrative subpoenas are “not self-enforcing” and carry no legal penalty if ignored. “Plaintiff will not suffer any injury by declining to respond to the ICE administrative subpoenas,” the state brief asserts. “Because state law unequivocally prohibits Marion County from producing the requested information without a court order, and because the county will suffer no legal consequences from insisting that a court order issue before it complies, there is nothing further for this Court to do.”
“Because state law unequivocally prohibits Marion County from producing the requested information without a court order, and because the county will suffer no legal consequences from insisting that a court order issue before it complies, there is nothing further for this Court to do,” the motion states.
The brief also asserts that “counties, as political subdivisions, cannot sue states in federal court for constitutional challenges to state laws,” citing City of San Juan Capistrano v. California Public Utilities Commission (2019).
Sheriffs’ Letter Highlights Broad Concern Across Oregon
In an August 27 letter addressed to Attorney General Rayfield and U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, the Oregon State Sheriffs’ Association (OSSA) wrote:
“We agree that there is a good deal of uncertainty in how these state and federal laws apply to local governments and Sheriff’s Offices in the State of Oregon, including those situations where a Sheriff’s Office or local government is served with an administrative subpoena pursuant to 8 USC §1225.”
The sheriffs urged the federal court not to dismiss Marion County’s lawsuit outright, but to clarify the issue for all local governments:
“We recognize that a declaratory judgment action is intended to declare the rights of the parties, but OSSA respectfully encourages the parties to ask Judge McShane to issue a detailed opinion that provides the type of clarity that will help all local governments in Oregon ensure they are properly following federal, state, and local laws.”
That letter was signed by 34 of Oregon’s 36 sheriffs, including those from Marion, Polk, Linn, Yamhill, Clatsop, and Douglas Counties.
Separately, twenty Oregon counties had already joined together in early October to send a similar request for clarification, stating that “legal uncertainty harms everyone and benefits no one.”
Marion County Counsel Steve Elzinga explained the county’s position:
“The federal and state governments disagree about when public records already provided to the media about violent criminals can be provided to federal agents, so Marion County asked the federal court to determine what the law requires.”
Federal Enforcement Operations Intensify the Debate
The legal clash coincides with a surge in federal immigration enforcement in Oregon. Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced that ICE arrested multiple violent criminal aliens in Portland — individuals convicted of homicide, sexual assault, and drug trafficking — during operations complicated by civil unrest.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem visited Portland following the arrests. Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin stated:
“Pedophiles, murderers, sexual predators, and drug traffickers, these are the heinous criminals Antifa domestic terrorists are trying to obstruct law enforcement from removing from our communities. We are not allowing domestic terrorists to slow us down from removing the worst of the worst.”
Among those arrested were Jose Aguilar-Zuniga, convicted of conspiracy to distribute fentanyl and attempted murder, and Carlos Lopez-Maya, convicted of attempted homicide and unlawful weapon use. Federal officials described the arrests as part of a larger initiative to “restore public safety and order in cities impacted by unrest.”
Counties in the Crossfire
The dispute highlights a deeper federalism bind that counties face as administrative intermediaries between the state and the federal government.
Oregon’s Sanctuary Promise Act (ORS 181A.820 et seq.) prohibits counties and other “public bodies” from using local resources to assist federal immigration enforcement without a judicial order. But under federal law (8 U.S.C. §1225), ICE retains authority to issue administrative subpoenas and can later seek court enforcement if agencies do not comply.
That leaves counties like Marion in a precarious position:
- If they comply with ICE administrative subpoenas, they risk violating Oregon law.
- If they refuse, they risk being accused of obstructing federal enforcement or facing pressure from the Department of Homeland Security.
- If they wait for a court order, they can comply legally — but at the cost of delay and potential political fallout from both directions.
In his motion, Attorney General Rayfield acknowledged the “heightened rhetoric” surrounding the issue but maintained that “federal courts are not available to issue advisory opinions.” The state’s position is that the law already provides a clear roadmap: counties must decline ICE requests until a judge enforces them.
But for local governments, the problem is not abstract. Sheriffs are directly responsible for jails and inmate data — the very information ICE seeks. Many say that without a definitive court ruling, they remain unsure how to navigate simultaneous obligations under federal subpoenas, state sanctuary laws, and public records statutes.
The Oregon State Sheriffs’ Association put it bluntly: the law’s intent may be clear in theory, but “uncertainty” persists in practice.
About the Author
