Gonzalez v. ICE Settlement: Terms, Coverage, and Detainer Forms

The Gonzalez v. ICE settlement is a class action agreement that bars Immigration and Customs Enforcement from issuing certain immigration detainers unless a neutral decision-maker first reviews whether probable cause exists. Approved by a federal judge in December 2024 and effective March 4, 2025, it runs for five years and covers people flagged by database checks or interview-based detainers issued from the Central District of California or through the Pacific Enforcement Response Center, which handles detainer operations for 42 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories.¹

What the Settlement Requires ICE to Do

The core requirement is a neutral review process. Before the Pacific Enforcement Response Center (PERC) can issue a standard detainer, ICE must set up a review that provides procedural protections comparable to what the Fourth Amendment requires for an arrest. A neutral decision-maker, not another ICE officer, has to assess probable cause.²

Until that process exists, ICE cannot issue Box 3 or Box 4 detainers from the PERC, from any ICE office in the Central District of California, or from any office nationwide during PERC’s coverage hours (generally 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. local time). The settlement also blocks obvious workarounds. ICE cannot route detainer decisions through a local field office to sidestep the PERC, cannot start a case at the PERC overnight and hand it to a local office the next morning, and cannot transfer PERC’s detainer responsibilities to another office to escape the neutral review requirement.³

Who the Settlement Covers

The class includes all current and future people subject to a Box 3 or Box 4 immigration detainer, meaning a detainer based on biometric database checks (Box 3) or on statements made to an immigration officer (Box 4), if the detainer was issued from the Central District of California or through PERC’s coverage area. PERC handles detainer operations in 42 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories.⁴

Two groups are excluded: people who already have a final order of deportation when the detainer issues, and people already in removal proceedings at that point.⁴

The New Detainer Forms

Two updated forms come out of the settlement, and one of them applies nationwide.

Form I-247A is the revised immigration detainer itself. It carries a prominent instruction that local law enforcement must serve a copy on the person in custody, and it states that if the detainer is not served, it is invalid and cannot justify continued detention. This form is used nationwide, not only inside the settlement class.⁵

Form I-247G is a “Request for Advance Notification of Release.” This is what PERC can send in place of a standard detainer while the neutral review process is missing. Unlike a detainer, Form I-247G says on its face that local law enforcement has no authority to hold anyone past their release date on ICE’s behalf.² Advocates have warned that some jails may not understand the difference and could hold people anyway; the Immigrant Legal Resource Center has published guidance urging attorneys to make sure local sheriffs and jail staff know Form I-247G is not a hold.⁶

How Long It Lasts and Where Things Stand

The settlement’s obligations run for five years from the March 4, 2025 effective date.¹

As of mid-2025, ICE had not established the neutral review process the settlement requires. That means the strictest version of the restriction is in effect: PERC cannot issue standard detainers at all and is limited to notification-of-release requests on Form I-247G.² The government must file compliance reports every six months, starting in September 2025.⁶

What Happens if ICE Violates the Settlement

If someone in the class receives a Box 3 or Box 4 detainer from a covered office or during covered hours without the neutral review, the settlement gives them options. The person may seek release from ICE detention. If they are subject to mandatory detention, DHS has to notify the individual, their attorney, the immigration court, and class counsel that a violation occurred.³

Class counsel is monitoring compliance. Attorneys who suspect a non-compliant detainer are asked to send a copy, along with arrest timestamps or fax cover sheets, to designated email addresses at the National Immigrant Justice Center and the ACLU of Southern California.⁶

The Separate $14 Million Payout Against LA County

The Gonzalez settlement itself does not pay damages to class members. It is an injunctive settlement that changes how ICE operates. Money in this litigation came from a related case, Roy v. County of Los Angeles, which was consolidated with Gonzalez and targeted the LA County Sheriff’s Department for honoring ICE detainers between October 2010 and June 2014.⁷

The LA County Board of Supervisors approved a $14 million settlement in October 2020, and the federal court granted final approval on February 3, 2022. It covered more than 18,500 people, divided into three subclasses:⁸

Fourth Amendment Class: people held past their scheduled release solely because of an ICE detainer, eligible for up to $1,000 per day of unlawful detention, capped at $25,000.
Equal Protection Class: people whose bail was low enough for release but who were booked into jail anyway because of an ICE hold, eligible for up to $1,000 per day, also capped at $25,000.
No-Bail Class: people denied bail entirely due to an ICE hold, receiving a flat $250 payment after submitting a sworn statement.

Claimants did not have to disclose their immigration status, and the settlement required that submitted information stay confidential and not be shared with ICE.⁹ The claim period for that settlement has closed; it does not offer a path to compensation for new detainer cases going forward.

How the Case Got Here

Gerardo Gonzalez, a U.S. citizen, was booked on state criminal charges in Los Angeles in December 2012. During booking, an ICE agent ran his name through electronic databases, which flagged his birthplace as Mexico and showed no record of lawful entry. Based only on that database hit, ICE issued a detainer asking the LA County Sheriff’s Department to hold him for up to five additional days after he was otherwise eligible for release. When he tried to post bail in May 2013, the detainer prevented it. He filed suit on June 19, 2013.¹⁰ Simon Chinivizyan, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Uzbekistan, joined as a second named plaintiff after being detained in LA County Jail solely on an immigration detainer.¹¹

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California as Case No. 2:13-cv-04416, brought by the ACLU of Southern California, the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, and Kaye, McLane, Bednarski & Litt.¹² After a 2020 Ninth Circuit ruling sent the injunctive claims back to the district court, the parties negotiated the settlement rather than retry the case, producing the agreement Judge André Birotte Jr. approved in December 2024.¹⁰

1
National Immigrant Justice Center. New Class Action Settlement Requires ICE To Stop Rampant Constitutional Violations for People Subject to ICE Detainers
2
National Immigrant Justice Center. Gonzalez Settlement Explainer
3
Immigrant Legal Resource Center. Stop Illegal ICE Detainers Gonzalez Settlement Presentation
4
National Immigrant Justice Center. Gonzalez Detainers Class Settlement Agreement
5
Immigrant Legal Resource Center. Stop Illegal ICE Detainers Gonzalez Settlement Supplemental Materials
6
Immigrant Legal Resource Center. Gonzalez v. ICE Practice Advisory
7
ACLU of Southern California. LA County Settles Immigrant Detention Suit for $14 Million
8
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. Roy v. Los Angeles County
9
PR Newswire. More Than 18,500 Individuals Unlawfully Detained by LA County Sheriffs Department to Receive Compensation From $14 Million Settlement
10
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Gonzalez v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, No. 20-55175
11
ACLU. Gonzalez v. ICE
12
ACLU of Southern California. Gonzalez v. ICE