by Chuck Sharman

On January 9, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York granted approval to a settlement agreement by federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and its parent agency, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), resolving claims by three nonprofits providing legal services to detained migrants whose legal mail was copied and retained by officials at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility (BFDF) in Batavia.

ICE guidelines state that detainees are “entitled to retain legal material received for their personal use” and that any such material “shall be inspected but not read.” But guards at BFDF apparently had trouble following those guidelines after a November 2023 policy change, under which legal mail was: (1) opened in front of the detainee to whom it was addressed and (2) inspected for contraband before (3) a photocopy was made for the detainee and (4) the original was sealed back into its envelope and placed in the detainee’s property bin. Detainees observed guards reading their privileged mail while scanning it and making photocopies. Many were not permitted to see that the original had been sealed and placed in their property bins, forced to take a guard’s word that its confidentiality had not been violated. Even worse, the new policy provided no time limit for the retention of documents.

The reason for the change, according to BFDF Assistant Field Officer Director Peter Sukmanowski, was “actionable intelligence” as well as “prior health-related activities involving detainees and staff members due to contraband being introduced into the facility through general correspondence, items marked as legal mail, and items marked as special correspondence.” But Sukmanowski failed to identify what “actionable intelligence” ICE had, nor the “prior health related activities” that resulted, according to the complaint that the nonprofits later filed. Moreover, the new policy was applied to outgoing mail, too—with no explanation how that had been used to smuggle contraband into the lockup.

It wasn’t as if there wasn’t a ready alternative. Using certain specialized mail scanning equipment, such as MailSecur machines manufactured by Massachusetts-based RaySecur, envelopes do not have to be opened when screened for contraband, as PLN has reported. [See: PLN, Feb. 2026, p.l.] BFDF obtained some of the equipment in March 2024, interrupting implementation of its new policy and allowing detainees again to receive and send their legal mail without having guards open it. But that ended in November of that same year, when guards resumed the invasive practice, expanding it to nab materials exchanged during in-person visits between detainees and their attorneys.

Lawsuit Filed, Injunctive Relief Recommended

Given the chilling effect that this had on detainees’ ability to report their conditions of confinement—based on the real threat of retaliation from guards reading complaints written about them—the suit was filed in March 2025 by Prisoners’ Legal Services (PLS) of New York and two other nonprofits providing detainees pro bono legal representation, Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights and the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). They accused Defendant officials, including DHS then-Secretary Kristi Noem, of violating their First Amendment rights, as well as the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

The case was brought in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, where a magistrate judge recommended on August 5, 2025, that Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction be granted. The case was then transferred to the Western District of New York on August 25, 2025. See: Prisoners’ Legal Servs. of N.Y. v. United States Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195443 (S.D.N.Y.); and 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165192 (W.D.N.Y.). Thereafter, the parties proceeded to reach their settlement agreement.

Under its terms, Defendants promised that the BFDF “shall utilize the MailSecur 300, or similar device, to scan all incoming Special Correspondence or Legal Mail at the BFDF.” Moreover, BFDF officials “shall not open, copy, or retain the envelope or packaging, or the contents thereof, of incoming Special Correspondence or Legal Mail” except in two circumstances: (1) “there are more than 25 pages” or (2) “if the MailSecur 300 detects a foreign substance.” In the former case, the detainee must separate the documents into 25-page batches and seal them in manila envelopes provided by guards, who then pass the envelopes through the scanning equipment.

If the machine scanner detects contraband, guards must create a log with the detainee’s name and identifying number, the name of the sender and recipient, along with “a description of the mail in question” and “a description of the action taken and the reason for it,” as well as “the disposition of the item and the date of disposition,” all attested to by the signature of the ICE officer involved. The original documents and their envelope must be retained together and placed in the detainee’s property bin while he observes. The procedures also will be applied to documents passed between detainees and their attorneys during in-person visits.

The agreement included provisions governing disputes over whether the agency is upholding its end of the bargain, and it is valid and enforceable by the district court for three years. The parties agreed to shoulder their own legal costs and fees. Plaintiffs were represented by their in-house counsel as well as attorneys Samuel B. Hainbach, Tyler T. Jankauskas and Jordan S. Joachim of Covington & Burling, LLP in Manhattan. See: Prisoners’ Legal Servs. of N.Y. v. United States Dep’t of Homeland Sec., USDC (W.D.N.Y.), Case No. 1:25-cv-00787.

Despite protestations that its policy change was harmless, “ICE at Batavia changed their policy to permit ICE officers there to open legal mail, and that policy very plainly violated the First Amendment,” Amy Belsher, a supervising attorney with the state ACLU, told WGRZ in Buffalo. “Lawyers cannot send communications to clients that they know will be read, especially where they’re going to be read by the opposing party.”  

Additional source: WGRZ

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login

Related legal case