Orange County signs ICE warrant-service addendum amid legal warnings, commissioners ratify

Mayor Jerry L. Demings signed an addendum to the county's warrant-service officer (WSO) memorandum of agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Aug. 1, then brought the document to the Board of County Commissioners for ratification on Aug. 5. The mayor said he signed to avoid an immediate removal action by the state after the Attorney General's office publicly threatened county officials. County Attorney Jeffrey Newton and Sheriff's Office and corrections leaders briefed commissioners before a vote.

The addendum modifies the existing WSO arrangement by adding language that permits, "only upon a request of an ICE officer," participating local law enforcement personnel to transport arrested aliens to an ICE-approved facility or office, if the local officers have the required ICE authorization and the transporting agency approves. Jeffrey Newton told commissioners that the addendum is not required by the statute that originally prompted the WSO (Fla. Stat. 908.11) and noted the county had informed the Florida Sheriffs Association of its implementation concerns, including limited corrections staffing. Newton recommended ratification to avoid immediate removal of elected officials and to preserve the county's ability to litigate state actions from a stable seat of government.

The mayor said he signed after concluding the county faced an imminent enforcement action by state officials and that signing would preserve the commissioners' ability to remain in office and pursue legal remedies without leaving the county exposed to rapid replacement by state appointees. Demings and county legal staff emphasized the addendum requires a request from ICE before transport would be sought and that, if a request occurs, county staff would be able to assess operational readiness and potential public- safety impacts before providing personnel.

During the public comment segment, more than 40 speakers pressed the board to resist state pressure and filed appeals, called for litigation and asked the county to stop cooperating with ICE transports. Dozens of community organizations, faith leaders and elected officials urged commissioners to approve litigation and to deny what they called "forced cooperation" with ICE. Several speakers described accounts from local detainees and urged the board to protect immigrant families. Others in the audience and several members of the public urged that the county follow the attorney general's demand.

Following the briefing and public comment, the commission voted 5'to'2 to ratify the addendum. Commissioners Nicole Wilson and Lina Morrison (names per transcript) voted against ratification. The county attorney told the commission the vote would not foreclose future litigation and indicated staff would continue to pursue legal options. Newton warned the board that refusal to ratify could have led to immediate suspension and removal proceedings by state officials; he said the addendum language is discretionary, not mandatory, and that the county's obligations to transport would require a specific ICE request and operational authorization.

What the addendum does and does not do: the addendum does not obligate the county to proactively transport detainees; it creates a limited mechanism for transportation "only upon a request of an ICE officer" and only by personnel authorized by ICE and approved by their employing agency. County officials emphasized the sheriff's office and corrections division would consider staffing, safety and operational readiness before any actual transport. Newton said that, in practice, Orange County has not been asked to transport detainees under this addendum at the time of the Aug. 5 vote.

Next steps: Commissioners were briefed that the county continues to examine its intergovernmental service agreement (IGSA) and basic ordering agreement (BOA) options with federal partners. County staff said they will pursue outreach and legal review and will return to the board with options for litigation strategy and any future actions. The mayor and county attorney said they prefer to pursue legal action from the authority of the current board, rather than risk rapid replacements, and they urged the board to use deliberate, legally grounded steps rather than precipitous refusal that might trigger state removal actions.