Public commenters accuse Grayson County of detaining 'legally innocent' people on ICE detainers, call it human trafficking

Two public commenters used the fiscal court's public‑comment period to accuse county officials of working with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in a way that detains people without judicial orders and, they said, amounts to human trafficking.

Britney, a scheduled commenter, told the court she had obtained inspection reports via FOIA that she said show overcrowding at the Grayson County Detention Center dating back to 2019. "You guys are human traffickers," she said, clarifying that she meant the county's conduct matched the federal definition of human trafficking — "the use of force, fraud, or coercion to exploit a person for labor or services." She said local jails are not required to honor ICE detainers and accused the county of choosing to hold people because "ICE pays for every single body in a bed." Britney said the county's answers to questions about the practice have been vague and that accountability has been lacking.

Kylie followed and expanded on the legal argument, telling the court that ICE detainers are requests, not warrants, and citing case law in which courts found liability where a county held a person on a detainer without a warrant. Kylie referenced a precedent described in the meeting as Gonzales v. ICE and said that counties that have honored detainers have faced constitutional and financial consequences. "Kentucky law does not require that our local law enforcement detain somebody solely based on an ICE detainer," Kylie said. "They do not automatically give you the authority to jail somebody."

Court response and context: the Presiding Officer thanked the commenters but did not provide a legal or factual rebuttal during the meeting. No county official present read a staff report or offered documentation in the record rebutting the public comments. The commenters recommended the court stop honoring ICE detainers and warned of potential liability; they did not provide a motion or formal petition for the court to consider during the session.

What’s next: the allegations, if they prompt official action, would require the court or staff to provide factual responses, legal analysis and documentary evidence (contracting, detention policies, or revenue flows tied to detainer payments). The court did not announce any follow‑up or staff assignment during the meeting.