Attorney Says ICE Blocked Visits After Lane County Arrests

A Eugene immigration attorney told a federal court in filings dated November 13 and 14 that she was not allowed to meet with people detained following November 5 immigration enforcement actions in Lane County. The attorney filed a declaration as part of a suite of legal motions led by organizations including Innovation Law Lab, seeking a preliminary injunction and class action status to require regular lawyer access to detainees held at Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities across Oregon.

The filings allege that federal officers at the Eugene ICE office prevented in person attorney visits with those taken in the November 5 operations. Advocates used the declaration to press for immediate relief, arguing that routine access to counsel is essential to ensure meaningful representation before transfers occur. The litigation addresses both access and conditions for people detained after recent local ICE operations, and remains ongoing in federal court.

The legal team is asking the court to order practices that would provide consistent access to attorneys statewide. If granted, such relief would change how ICE coordinates on site visits, notifications to lawyers, and transfer policies that currently can move detainees before attorneys can consult with them. The plaintiffs are further seeking class action certification in some motions so that statewide rules would apply to all similarly situated detainees rather than only to the named individuals in the case.

For Lane County residents and local legal service providers the case raises concrete questions about due process and the ability of counsel to prepare defenses or seek bond and other relief on behalf of detained clients. Local immigration attorneys and advocates have argued that short windows for contact and rapid transfers complicate preparation for removal proceedings and limit opportunities to pursue lawful immigration relief. The filings underscore concerns about transparency of federal detention operations and the mechanisms available to challenge them.

Institutionally, the litigation tests the balance of federal enforcement practices with constitutional and statutory access to counsel. A preliminary injunction could require ICE to adopt standardized procedures for notifying attorneys and permitting visits before detainees are moved, which would create new operational requirements for the agency across Oregon. The case also highlights the role of nonprofit legal organizations in monitoring enforcement activity and using federal courts to seek systemic change.

As court challenges continue, the outcome will shape how attorneys, advocates, and community organizations engage with federal detention operations in Lane County and beyond. Local residents who work with immigrant communities should expect ongoing litigation and potential policy shifts that could affect how detained individuals receive legal assistance and how enforcement actions are conducted in the region.