A high-profile late March arrest by federal immigration agents at a courthouse in Marion County appears to have violated the state’s sanctuary law, but it’s unclear whether an inquiry into the incident from the Oregon Department of Justice will result in any significant action.

The review from state attorneys came in response to federal immigration agents at Salem’s Marion County Circuit Court receiving some assistance from local authorities during two arrests on March 26. Video depicting those arrests shows one instance of a member of the sheriff’s office walking around federal agents pushing a man to the ground inside the courthouse.

“The Oregon Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Unit received a report about federal immigration officials entering the Marion County Courthouse,” Jenny Hansson, a spokesperson for the Oregon Department of Justice, said in a statement Monday. “The CRU contacted the sheriff’s office regarding the incident and were advised that ICE agents presented a judicial warrant for a specific individual.”

But although one of the arrests in Salem involved a man for whom federal agents obtained a judicial warrant, federal immigration authorities relied on an administrative warrant to arrest one man shown in the video. The difference between judicial warrants, signed by judges, and administrative warrants, signed by immigration officers, is key in Oregon’s longstanding sanctuary law. Guidelines from Oregon Chief Justice Meagan Flynn in summer 2025 also echo the state’s 2021 sanctuary law and prohibit “civil arrests in or around court facilities without a judicial warrant or judicial order.” 

The sanctuary law, first passed in the 1980s and expanded in 2021, prohibits using state and local law enforcement resources to assist with immigration enforcement without a judicial warrant. 

Oregon law doesn’t permit local or state law enforcement to assist with immigration arrests through administrative warrants. A federal judge in February dismissed a lawsuit from Marion County officials claiming that the law forced local governments to decide between conflicting state and federal laws.

Hansson said she wasn’t able to respond to follow-up questions about the administrative arrest by Monday. 

“This is all we can really say at this time,” she wrote. 

There have been few publicly reported instances of immigration enforcement at Oregon courthouses, such as a July arrest by federal immigration agents outside Washington County Circuit Court. While the Trump administration argues that such arrests are necessary to allow agents to conduct safe operations, critics say the approach discourages witnesses, crime victims and survivors from participating in the legal system.

While the Marion County Sheriff’s Office directly assisted in apprehending the individual with the judicial warrant, they took a more hands-off approach for the administrative warrant. 

A statement from the local law enforcement agency said that its officers escorted federal agents “through publicly accessible areas as they removed the disorderly arrestee from the courthouse to ensure there were no further disruptions to court operations.” A witness who spoke to the Salem Reporter, however, said they did not see the man “visibly resisting.”

Oregon lawmakers didn’t take up legislation during this year’s legislative session to further restrict civil arrests under immigration law at courthouses, deferring to existing state law that allows people to file civil suits against public agencies in the state which violate the sanctuary provisions. 

California passed a law during the first iteration of the Trump administration to empower arrested individuals to seek a writ of habeas corpus. That would allow a detainee to appear in person in front of a judge to determine whether their detention was justified.

A federal judge in November dismissed a lawsuit from the Trump administration challenging a New York law largely banning immigration-related courthouse arrests, though the case has since been appealed. 

State lawmaker supports thorough investigation

The Marion County Sheriff’s Office has maintained that its operations were conducted in accordance with state and federal law. An agency spokesperson did not immediately respond to questions from the Capital Chronicle on Monday.

But following the March 26 arrest with the administrative warrant, the state’s Department of Justice told The Oregonian/OregonLive that it was reviewing the incident “to determine whether legal action is warranted.” 

It’s unclear what exactly could come from that inquiry. Although the case could be investigated for concerns of excessive force, the justice department’s own guidance suggests that enforcement of the sanctuary law rests upon individual Oregonians.

“Oregon DOJ can intervene in a non-punitive way with agencies subject to the law to improve compliance with sanctuary laws,” the civil rights unit’s sanctuary promise community toolkit reads. “The Oregon DOJ report can be subpoenaed for use if a community member or any person files for injunctive relief or otherwise pursues civil legal action/remedies against a violating agency.”

The only successful legal challenge brought under Oregon’s sanctuary laws since 2021 involved a lawsuit backed by the nonprofit Cottage Grove-based Rural Organizing Project. The organization helped win a court order in 2024 barring the city and its police from collaborating with federal immigration authorities to enforce immigration law.

But even if a report found that the Marion County Sheriff’s Office violated the state’s sanctuary law, it’s not guaranteed that the agency could be required to face sanctions from state court. The office hasn’t named the man whom federal immigration agents arrested, though they’ve said that he was facing charges of unlawful possession of cocaine and driving under the influence of intoxicants.

Tung Yin, a professor of law at Portland’s Lewis & Clark Law School, questioned how enforcement of the sanctuary law would work for a person who was arrested and eventually deported. He said that they “probably would not have a claim under state law.” 

“I highly doubt any public interest organizations would be able to sue on behalf of a removed person, even if there were a claim against federal officials,” Yin wrote in an email. “Standing in Oregon courts isn’t as stringent as in federal courts, but a generalized interest on behalf of the community probably won’t work.”

Rep. Willy Chotzen, a Portland Democrat who serves as vice chair of the House Judiciary Committee, helped oversee the passage of immigrant rights bills attempting to restrict the conduct of federal agents in Oregon during this year’s short legislative session. He said he supports having a full investigation into the incident, adding that the video “shows something that is very alarming, and something that certainly looks like it would be a violation of our sanctuary laws.”

“We either need, as a state, to enforce the sanctuary laws or the individuals who are impacted and harmed, they need to have access to a lawyer,” he told the Capital Chronicle. “They need to have access to the court system in ways that I think we’re seeing the Trump administration actively trying to prevent people from having such access.”

An unnamed spokesperson for the Homeland Security Department didn’t answer questions about the administrative arrest and instead responded to an inquiry with information about the criminal charges facing the man they had arrested with a judicial warrant. The spokesperson criticized elected officials who decline to cooperate with federal immigration authorities, saying they “are wasting law enforcement time, energy, and resources, while putting their own constituents in danger.”

Oregon Capital Chronicle is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Oregon Capital Chronicle maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Julia Shumway for questions: [email protected]. Follow Oregon Capital Chronicle on Facebook and Twitter.

STORY TIP OR IDEA? Send an email to Salem Reporter’s news team: [email protected].