Kentucky AG Ruling Allows Jails to Withhold ICE Detainer Data

I submitted an open records request to the Oldham County Detention Center and appealed the denial to the Kentucky Attorney General. On March 31, 2026, I received the opinion.

My request was straightforward. I asked for jail-generated records covering a one-year period for individuals held with ICE detainers. I did not seek names, ICE case files, or federal documents. I asked only for operational data maintained by the jail:

• booking date and time

• the date and time a person became eligible for release from criminal custody

• the actual release date and time

• whether an ICE detainer was present

• the timing of any transfer to ICE custody

The purpose of the request was to understand how custody decisions unfold over time. Specifically, whether individuals remain in jail after they are eligible for release, and how that timing intersects with federal immigration enforcement.

The Attorney General’s opinion answered a different question.

The decision concluded that the jail violated the Open Records Act in its initial response because it did not properly explain the legal basis for denying the request. The remainder of the opinion is where the substantive issue is resolved.

The opinion accepts the jail’s argument that a federal regulation, 8 CFR 236.6, prohibits disclosure of any “information relating to” individuals held on behalf of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The interpretation is broad. It does not distinguish between records created by ICE and records created by the jail. It does not distinguish between identifying information and anonymized data. It does not allow for redaction.

If a record contains information connected to an ICE detainee, the opinion treats the entire record as non-public.

This interpretation places routine jail operational data into the same category as confidential federal detainee information.

That includes timestamps that describe how custody unfolds:

• when a person becomes eligible for release

• when they are actually released

• when custody is transferred to another agency

These are standard fields in jail management systems. They are used to track movement through the system, not to identify individuals.

Under this ruling, those fields are no longer accessible when they involve ICE detainees.

Without access to this data, a basic question becomes difficult to answer:

How long do individuals remain in custody after they are eligible for release?

That question matters because ICE detainers are requests to hold individuals for a limited period so federal authorities can assume custody. The timing of that process determines how long a person remains in a local jail after their criminal case has concluded.

The requested records would have made it possible to examine that timing directly.

The ruling prevents that analysis.

The opinion relies on the phrase “information relating to a detainee” and applies it broadly to all records connected to ICE detainees.

In doing so, it removes a distinction that typically exists in open records law:

the difference between identifying information and operational data.

It also removes the requirement to release non-exempt portions of a record through redaction, which is a standard feature of Kentucky’s Open Records Act.

The result is a category of records that can be withheld in full, even when they are anonymized and locally generated.

I could file a FOIA request with ICE. However, it is unlikely to produce the same dataset I asked the jail for. Why? Because my original request targeted:

• jail-generated custody data

• stored in the jail’s system

ICE does not maintain those same records in the same way. ICE usually does not have:

• precise jail booking timestamps

• criminal release eligibility times

• jail-calculated custody status fields

Those live in the local jail system, not ICE systems.

Hopefully at this point, you are seeing the bigger picture issue:

• The local jail holds the full custody timeline but will not release it

• ICE holds partial records but does not maintain the full dataset

That gap is exactly why these datasets are hard to obtain.

This is not unique to Oldham County. The Lexington Herald-Leader encountered similar denials when requesting billing records from multiple Kentucky jails housing ICE detainees. Those facilities cited the same federal regulation as the basis for withholding records.

Read more at: https://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/article314848771.html

The decision can be appealed in circuit court within 30 days. That path would require litigation.

Absent that, the opinion stands as guidance for how similar requests will be handled in Kentucky.

For now, it establishes a boundary.

For my request, records that show how ICE detainers intersect with local custody timelines are treated as confidential, even when they do not identify the individuals involved.

That leaves the public unable to see how long individuals remain in custody after they are eligible for release, even when that information exists in routine jail records.