Kentucky Open Records Law and ICE Detainee Records: What 26-ORD-138 and 26-ORD-150 Mean
Attorney General rulings clarify when jail records are not public and when agencies must still disclose
The requests
In early 2026, two separate open records requests were submitted to the Oldham County Detention Center. Both asked for information tied to the jail’s role in holding individuals on behalf of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The requests were different in scope.
One focused on data elements tied to detainees—booking times, release times, transfer dates, and other operational markers.
The other was broader. It sought contracts, communications, payment records, inspection reports, complaint logs, population data, and internal policies.
The jail denied both requests using the same reasoning: records related to ICE must be requested from ICE.
Each denial was appealed. The Attorney General issued two opinions, three days apart.
The rule
The first opinion, 26-ORD-138, addressed the request for detainee-related data.
The Attorney General’s office agreed with the jail’s ultimate position. It held that records containing “information relating to” ICE detainees are not public records under Kentucky law when federal regulation applies.
That conclusion changes how the Open Records Act operates in this context.
Normally, an agency must separate exempt and non-exempt material and release the remainder. Here, that does not apply. If a record contains information tied to a detainee, the entire record is treated as outside the definition of a public record. It is not redacted. It is not partially released. It is not produced.
The authority comes from a federal regulation, 8 C.F.R. § 236.6, which places control of detainee-related information with federal immigration agencies. Kentucky law incorporates that restriction.
That is the rule established in 26-ORD-138.
The test
The second opinion, 26-ORD-150, addressed the broader request.
Again, the jail denied everything. Again, it relied on the same federal regulation.
This time, the Attorney General’s office rejected that approach.
The opinion holds that an agency cannot issue a blanket denial. It must identify the specific records being withheld and explain how the law applies to each category.
Then it analyzes the request item by item.
Contracts and payment records: not automatically exempt
Communications about revenue and costs: not automatically exempt
Inspection reports: not automatically exempt
General policies: not automatically exempt
These categories relate to the operation of the facility, not to specific detainees. The jail did not show that the federal regulation applied to them.
But other categories were treated differently.
Requests for population data and length of detention were compared to the earlier case and allowed to be withheld. Complaints filed by detainees could also be withheld if they contained detainee-related information.
The boundary
The two opinions work together, even though they arise from separate requests.
26-ORD-138 establishes that records containing information related to ICE detainees are not public records under Kentucky law and cannot be released even in redacted form.
26-ORD-150 limits how that rule can be applied by requiring agencies to justify withholding on a record-by-record basis and by rejecting blanket denials, while still allowing detainee-related records to be withheld.
That creates a two-part system.
Some records remain accessible: contracts, payments, policies, and facility-level operations.
Other records are removed from access entirely: anything deemed to contain information relating to a detainee.
How it works in practice
The dividing line is not fixed in statute. It is defined through application.
Agencies must decide whether a record relates to detainees. Requesters must frame requests to separate operational records from detainee-linked data. Disputes will turn on how broadly that category is interpreted.
The second opinion shows that not everything connected to ICE detention is exempt. The first shows that once a record falls into the detainee-related category, it disappears from the Open Records Act entirely.
Where this shows up
This framework applies anywhere a Kentucky jail holds individuals for federal immigration authorities.
The same questions now apply across the state:
What records remain subject to state disclosure law?
What records are controlled by federal regulation?
How is that boundary defined in practice?
These opinions begin to answer those questions. They do not resolve them.
What to watch
Three developments will shape how this operates:
How broadly agencies interpret “information relating to a detainee”
How requests are structured to isolate facility-level information
Whether courts are asked to review this framework
The shift
These two opinions do not change the statute. They change how it functions in a specific setting.
A record created inside a Kentucky jail can now fall into one of two categories:
A public record subject to disclosure
A record treated as not public at all because of federal law
The dividing line is who the record is about.
That line is now being drawn through individual requests.
Further Reading
Kentucky Attorney General Opinion 26-ORD-138 (March 31, 2026) — Detainee-related records and federal control
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2026/26-ORD-138.pdfKentucky Attorney General Opinion 26-ORD-150 (April 3, 2026) — Limits on blanket denials and record-by-record justification
https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/orom/2026/26-ORD-150.pdf