A growing coalition of Oregon counties is backing Marion County’s legal effort to clarify the relationship between state sanctuary laws and federal immigration enforcement. Twenty of Oregon’s thirty-six counties have formally signed a letter supporting Marion County’s federal lawsuit, which seeks judicial guidance on how local governments should handle requests from federal immigration authorities.
The lawsuit, filed in August in U.S. District Court in Eugene, focuses on how Oregon’s Sanctuary Promise Act and Public Records Act intersect with federal law. At the center of the case is a dispute over whether local agencies can provide certain types of information—such as addresses, phone numbers, and employment details of individuals on parole—in response to administrative subpoenas from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Administrative subpoenas differ from judicial warrants because they are issued directly by federal agencies, not courts.
Oregon’s sanctuary law restricts local and state cooperation with federal immigration enforcement except under specific, legally defined circumstances. That restriction includes barring local agencies from responding to administrative subpoenas from federal authorities. Marion County argues that some of the records ICE seeks are already available through public records requests, which creates confusion about what information counties can legally share.
The lawsuit names Governor Tina Kotek, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, and Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons as defendants. Marion County is asking the court for a detailed legal opinion to resolve conflicting interpretations between state and federal law. County officials argue that the current uncertainty leaves local governments in a difficult position, caught between state prohibitions and federal demands.
Earlier this week, Marion County announced that 20 counties had joined together in support of the legal action. Their letter was sent to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, urging clarity on the legal obligations of local governments. The list of counties includes Baker, Clatsop, Columbia, Coos, Crook, Deschutes, Jefferson, Klamath, Linn, Malheur, Polk, Sherman, Tillamook, Umatilla, Union, Wasco, Wheeler, Yamhill, Clackamas, and Marion.
The lawsuit could have significant statewide implications. A court ruling will determine whether counties must comply with ICE administrative subpoenas, despite state laws that limit cooperation, or whether Oregon’s sanctuary protections take precedence. The outcome could affect how local governments across the state interact with federal immigration authorities, shaping policies and practices for years to come.
Beyond the legal questions, the case carries practical and financial implications. Some federal funding streams, including grants for victim services, have been tied in part to local compliance with federal immigration policies. A ruling that shifts responsibilities toward local cooperation could alter how counties administer public safety programs and allocate resources.
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield has said his office intends to defend the state’s sanctuary law. The case is expected to move forward in federal court over the coming months, with many counties watching closely for guidance that could resolve years of tension between state legislation and federal enforcement measures.