Houston’s cooperation with ICE contrasts with practices of other police departments in Texas. Documents reveal different criteria regarding administrative orders.
Houston’s cooperation with ICE returned to the center of the debate after Mayor John Whitmire defended the Houston Police Department’s actions in response to immigration administrative orders. While the city asserts that state law requires cooperation, other police departments in Texas have adopted different stances when confronted with these documents, which are not criminal orders and are not signed by a judge.
What Houston Interprets from the State Law
During the current administration, more than 700,000 administrative immigration orders were integrated into the National Crime Information Center, a database traditionally used for criminal orders. These orders, internal to ICE and related to civil immigration violations, now appear in routine reviews as traffic stops.
Mayor Whitmire has reiterated that SB4 prohibits hindering collaboration with immigration authorities. Under that interpretation, HPD has reported more than 150 people to ICE since 2025 during routine encounters. In about a quarter of those cases, federal agents carried out arrests.
HPD Chief J. Noe Díaz has not publicly commented on the interpretation of the law or the operation of these administrative orders.
Other Departments in Texas Apply Different Criteria
Unlike Houston, departments such as Dallas have instructed their officers to avoid stopping people solely based on administrative orders. Internal trainings indicate that these documents are civil in nature and do not permit detentions without an additional offense.
Dallas Police Chief Daniel Comeaux has stated that his department does work with federal agencies on investigations into violence or human trafficking, but does not carry out immigration actions. “We are not immigration officers,” he said.
In the Houston area there are also criteria that differ from the HPD stance.
Precinct 7 policy indicates that officers should not question citizenship or treat illegal entry as a continuing offense. Contact with ICE occurs only when there is another criminal charge.
In Deer Park, the operating instruction is to notify ICE only if there is an additional offense. In La Porte, internal emails show that officers refused to detain an Uber driver for several hours without a crime justifying the detention, even when ICE requested time to send an agent.
Houston’s Cooperation with ICE and the Nature of Administrative Orders
Administrative orders differ from criminal orders because they are not signed by a judge. Legal experts in Texas have warned that detaining someone solely on a civil order could violate the Fourth Amendment.
Nevertheless, local leaders express concern about violating SB4 or losing federal funds if they limit interaction with ICE. This tension has led many agencies to operate without written guidelines. In Harris County, the sheriff’s office has confirmed that there is no specific policy on these orders; officers must “follow the law” and apply professional judgment.
Other departments have chosen to formalize their cooperation through 287(g) agreements. Montgomery County, Galveston County, and League City have indicated that they treat administrative orders “as any other” within that framework, which implies a broader level of coordination with ICE.
Operational Confusion Within Agencies
Internal documents from several agencies in the metro area show doubts about how to handle this type of orders.
In Missouri City, an internal directive caused confusion among dispatch staff and command about whether to confirm these notices in the database. The city has not published the full directive because it awaits an opinion from the Texas attorney general.
In La Porte, an officer called ICE upon detecting an administrative order in a record. ICE responded that they could send an agent if the officer detained the driver for three hours. With no criminal charges, the driver was released.
In Precinct 1, an internal memo indicated that officers should contact ICE’s support center when administrative orders appear, and decide with them whether to wait on scene or allow a follow-up.
In these exchanges, legal concepts such as immigration detentions, administrative orders, and detainers are mixed, underscoring that practices are not uniform.
Community Impact and Cases That Fuel the Debate
Several cities have faced claims after incidents in which domestic violence survivors ended up being reported to ICE during their interactions with police. In Austin, that episode led to a policy change: officers now have discretion to call ICE in cases involving administrative orders, with supervisor authorization.
In Harris County, the county jail hands over individuals with immigration detainers on a daily basis when they are already facing criminal charges, a process different from interactions that occur in public.
Meanwhile, Houston’s cooperation with ICE remains under scrutiny by community organizations and officials who are calling for clarity on how these decisions are made in Texas’s largest city.
What This Discussion Means for Houston
Houston’s cooperation with ICE will continue as a central issue as agencies attempt to balance state laws, constitutional constraints, and the trust of immigrant communities. Advocates and immigration experts say it is necessary to publicly explain which practices are being applied and why, and to make room for residents’ concerns.
For now, the available documents show a mixed landscape: some Texas police departments reject detaining people on civil orders, others notify ICE without detaining anyone, and others operate under formal agreements with the federal government. Houston, meanwhile, maintains that the law obligates cooperation.
