Seven Former Detainees File Class Action in D.D.C. Alleging ICE Has a 'De Facto Policy' of Keeping IDs, Work Permits and Property After Release

Allegations are the plaintiffs’. No defendant response or ruling exists as of the docket pull (RECAP copy last modified 2026-10-15).

• 2026-10-13 (filing date): Seven people file a Rule 23(b)(2) class complaint, Gonzalez et al. v. DHS, Mullin, ICE and Venturella, 1:26-cv-03564, D.D.C. Assigned the same day to Judge Carl J. Nichols. Summonses issued electronically 2026-10-13 (Doc. 3).
• 2026-10-14 and 10-15 (docket-entry dates): notices of appearance, a pro hac vice motion and a sealed document (Doc. 9; the complaint says plaintiffs’ home addresses are filed under seal in a separate notice, which is likely but not confirmed to be Doc. 9). No motion for class certification or preliminary injunction on the docket as of the pull. The public announcement came about 2026-10-15 per the dispatch (announcement date; not independently verified).

What the complaint alleges. ICE “routinely” fails to return what it takes from people detained on civil immigration charges (passports, EADs, driver’s licenses, Social Security cards, phones, cash, keys, clothing), “often months after” release (para. 2). It pleads five counts: Fourth Amendment in equity; Fourth Amendment via the APA; APA arbitrary-and-capricious; and two Accardi counts that ICE violates its own written directives (ICE Policy 11311 for documents; the PBNDS / National Detention Standards / NDIDS for other property). Rests on Asinor v. District of Columbia, 111 F.4th 1249, 1256 (D.C. Cir. 2024). Proposed class: everyone detained for civil immigration purposes on or after 2025-01-20 whose property is not returned despite no remaining government interest; subclass 1 documents, subclass 2 non-document property. Relief sought includes return of the seven plaintiffs’ items, vacatur/stay of the policy under 5 U.S.C. 705, and an order that ICE either return class members’ property or explain why not.

Counsel (Doc. 1 pp. 38-39): Democracy Defenders Fund (including Norman L. Eisen), ACLU of the District of Columbia, Roger Baldwin Foundation of ACLU (Illinois), Willkie Farr & Gallagher, and Matthew J. Platkin.

Detail on the seven plaintiffs, the cited contempt cases and the two ICE directives: gonzalez-v-dhs-ice-property-return-class-action-complaint-reading-and-directives-2026-10 (cascade-research). Related earlier entries: 2026-03-03–judge-bryan-contempt-hearing-ice-property-us-attorney-rosen, 2026-03-05–second-minnesota-judge-threatens-contempt-ice-property, 2026-03-06–tunheim-orders-ice-replace-eads-free-and-pay-ftca-claims-jbco-v-bondi.