The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in Portland, June 11, 2025.
Kristyna Wentz-Graff / OPB
The owner of the South Portland building that houses the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement office says city leaders are unconstitutionally penalizing him for his choice of tenants.
“Respondent’s decision to lease space to ICE is itself protected political expression and association,” attorneys representing property owner Stuart Lindquist wrote in an Oct. 14 letter to the city’s Permitting and Development department.
Last month, the city accused Lindquist of violating a land use agreement with the city. That 2011 zoning agreement prohibited ICE from using the facility to hold detainees longer than 12 hours or overnight – a rule that the city says ICE broke at least 25 times in the past year.
Under Portland’s land use rules, Lindquist has a month to fix the issue – but that date has since passed. This puts him at risk of a monthly fine of nearly $950, which could be doubled after three months if ICE doesn’t change its detention practices. The city has yet to impose this fine.
Lindquist has challenged this ruling through his attorneys, requesting what’s called an administrative review from the city’s permitting department. This process essentially allows a property owner to appeal land use violation decisions in a closed-door meeting with city permitting officials. That meeting is expected to take place in early November.
The Oct. 14 letter from Lindquist’s lawyers hints at the arguments he’ll bring to the conversation.
Attorneys Thomas Rask and Wendi Kellington contend that the city’s violation warning is driven by politics, rather than genuine land use concerns.
“This code enforcement case is a textbook example of unlawful selective enforcement with a clear discriminatory motive and unlawful political retaliation,” Lindquist’s lawyers write.
The ICE facility has been a focal point of months of largely low-key protests against the Trump administration’s immigration policies. That attention was magnified late last month, when Trump announced plans to deploy the Oregon National Guard in Portland to defend the ICE facility from protestors.
Mayor Keith Wilson issued a zoning violation warning against the building before Trump’s announcement. But it came after months of persistent demands from some Portlanders to “revoke” the land use agreement in protest of federal immigration enforcement tactics.
In the letter, Lindquist’s attorneys include screenshots of photos posted from the city’s official Facebook account that show Wilson marching alongside Gov. Tina Kotek in a Sept. 28 demonstration against Trump’s proposed troop deployment. In the background, protesters hold signs admonishing the federal government. Another city Facebook post includes protest signs reading “ICE out of Portland.”
“By rebroadcasting ‘protestors’ messages through an official channel of communicating with its constituency, the City has clearly taken the position that the City agrees with the message of the rioters,” the attorneys write.
The letter also points to “disturbing” photos posted to social media by Councilor Angelita Morillo criticizing ICE. It also notes a policy idea that’s been floated by Morillo to fine private property owners if they lease to detention centers. It says the proposal, which has yet to come before council, is a “content‑ and viewpoint‑targeted burden on those who choose to do business with ICE—an obvious ‘stick’ meant to make leasing to ICE economically painful.”
Lindquist’s attorneys reject the accusation that ICE is detaining people beyond its 12-hour limit, or overnight.
The city came to this conclusion after reviewing data shared by the Deportation Data Project, a nonprofit that used the federal Freedom of Information Act to request information on ICE processing centers across the country.
But Lindquist’s attorneys say this data has been “manipulated” by someone other than ICE and shows incomplete and anecdotal reports, used solely to support the city’s argument.
“Therefore,” they write, “the City’s [violation] must be dismissed because it has no evidentiary foundation.”
The 12-hour time limit has come up in other legal debates around ICE’s operations in Portland. Last week, attorneys representing farmworkers and a free legal clinic filed a lawsuit against ICE, saying their clients are being transported out of Oregon before they are able to meet with an attorney. In response, the federal government argued that it’s partially due to the detention time limits at the Portland ICE facility.
Lindquist has until Oct. 31 to send any additional information to the city to review before meeting with the permitting bureau next month. The bureau’s ruling can be appealed to the city hearings office. And that ruling could be appealed to Multnomah County Circuit Court.
