Can You Sue ICE Agents for Assault, False Arrest, or Excessive Force in Michigan?

Learn when ICE misconduct may support a lawsuit for assault, false arrest, or excessive force in Michigan—and what to do to stay safe and protect your rights.

Recent headlines have amplified a question many Michigan families are asking: if ICE harms someone during an enforcement action, can the victim sue? That question became even more urgent after reporting that an ICE agent in Minneapolis fatally shot a woman during an operation involving her neighbor.

This article is general legal information, not legal advice for your specific situation. Immigration consequences can be serious—if you or a loved one is contacted by ICE, consider speaking with counsel immediately.

Key takeaways (plain English)

• You cannot usually sue ICE under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because §1983 generally targets state/local actors, not federal agents.

• Federal claims are harder than most people realize because the U.S. Supreme Court has sharply limited constitutional “damages” suits against federal officers in immigration contexts.

• Many real-life cases still center on:

  • FTCA claims (suits against the United States for certain torts by federal “law enforcement officers”)

  • Injunctive/declaratory relief in appropriate cases

  • Claims involving local police working with ICE (which can bring §1983 back into play)

1) Why “§1983” is usually the wrong label for ICE (but still relevant sometimes)

42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the workhorse civil rights statute for police misconduct—but it applies to people acting “under color of state law.” ICE agents are federal officers.

That said, §1983 can become relevant if:

• local police jointly participate with ICE in a stop/raid, or

• a county jail holds someone purely on an ICE “detainer” without lawful authority under state law, depending on facts and local policy (these cases are fact-intensive).

  
  

Bottom line: suing “ICE under §1983” is usually not the clean pathway—but ICE misconduct can still create civil liability, just under different frameworks.

2) The two big civil pathways people actually use against federal law enforcement

A. Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA): suing the United States for certain misconduct

The Federal Tort Claims Act waives sovereign immunity for certain torts by federal employees, with major exceptions.

A critical provision for misconduct cases is the FTCA “law enforcement proviso” in 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h), which can allow claims for certain intentional torts (including assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process) when committed by federal “investigative or law enforcement officers.”

Practical examples that can map to FTCA claims:

• Wrong-address raid: agents hit the wrong home, breach a door, detain occupants, point weapons at kids.

• Traffic stop escalation: a driver is pulled over, removed from the car, slammed/struck/tased without a lawful basis.

• Bystander force: an unarmed family member is shoved, struck, or threatened while asking what’s happening.

  
  

The Supreme Court’s Martin decision matters for wrong-house raids

In Martin v. United States (No. 24‑362)—a wrong-house federal raid case—the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously remanded and rejected the Eleventh Circuit’s novel idea that the Supremacy Clause supplies a broad government “defense” in FTCA suits; the Court emphasized FTCA liability is generally tested by whether a private individual under like circumstances would be liable under state law.

The case is also a reminder that the FTCA’s discretionary-function exception remains a major battleground in federal misconduct litigation, and courts must analyze it carefully rather than treat it as a blanket “get out of jail free” card.

B. “Bivens” constitutional damages suits against federal agents (now very limited)

People often ask: “Can I sue the agent personally for violating the Constitution?”

Historically, Bivens allowed some constitutional damages claims against federal officers. But in Egbert v. Boule (2022), the Supreme Court refused to extend Bivens to:

• a First Amendment retaliation claim, and

• a Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim in an immigration-enforcement context.

Translation for real life: constitutional damages claims against federal immigration officers are often met with:

“Congress — not the courts — should create that remedy.”

That doesn’t mean “no case.” It means the strategy must be built carefully (FTCA, state-law analogs, injunctive relief where available, and identifying any state/local actors for §1983 if applicable).

3) Common “relatable” scenarios people are seeing (and what to do)

Here are scenarios that match what the public is describing across press and social media—paired with safety-first responses.

Scenario 1: ICE approaches you in public and demands ID

Safety-first response:

• Keep hands visible. Stay calm.

• Ask: “Am I being detained, or am I free to leave?”

• If detained: you can say, “I’m going to remain silent. I want a lawyer.”

• Do not lie or present false documents.

Important nuance: Federal immigration statutes give immigration officers authority to interrogate and make certain arrests under defined conditions. But race/ethnicity alone cannot be the basis for reasonable suspicion of unlawful presence; Supreme Court precedent rejects ancestry alone as sufficient.

Scenario 2: ICE stops your vehicle and orders you out

If you’re driving in Michigan, state law requires you to have your license and display it on demand of a police officer. Separately, Supreme Court precedent allows an officer to order a driver (and passengers) out during a lawful stop.

Safety-first response:

• Provide driver’s license/registration as required.

• If ordered out: comply physically (don’t fight), and preserve the legal challenge for later.

• Say: “I do not consent to a search.”

• Say: “I’m going to remain silent. I want an attorney.”

• 
  

Scenario 3: Agents damage your property or use force on a family member

Do not physically resist. Your best case is built by evidence:

• photos/video of damage, injuries, and the scene

• names/badge numbers (if safely obtainable)

• medical records

• witness names/phones

• preserve doorbell cam and security footage

4) What you should never do (even if you’re right)

• Don’t run.

• Don’t reach suddenly.

• Don’t argue on the street about constitutional doctrine - they don't care.

• Don’t touch an agent, block movement, or “grab your phone back.”

• Get to the police station alive and uninjured.

The smartest approach is: “Go home alive. Litigate later.”

FAQ

Can I sue ICE for excessive force? Sometimes—often through an FTCA theory and/or carefully evaluated claims against individuals depending on facts, jurisdiction, and current federal doctrine.

Can I sue ICE under §1983? Usually no, unless state/local actors are involved (joint action cases).

What damages are possible? Medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering, emotional distress, property loss, and (in certain pathways) more—depending on claim type and proof.

Free consultation

If you believe you or your family experienced ICE misconduct—wrong-address raids, unlawful detention, excessive force, assault/battery, or property destruction—contact The Cromer Law Group PLLC for a free consultation at (248) 809‑6790. We will listen, evaluate the facts, and explain potential civil rights and tort remedies.