26-ORD-150 – Bethany Baxter/Oldham County Detention Center

Opinion Content:

April 3, 2026

In re: Bethany Baxter/Oldham County Detention Center

Summary: The Oldham County Detention Center (“the Center”)
violated the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it did not adequately
explain how 8 C.F.R. § 236.6 applies to the records withheld.

Open Records Decision

On January 20, 2026, Bethany Baxter (“Appellant”) submitted a ten-part
request to the Center seeking “records relating to the [Center’s] housing individuals
under immigration detainers.” Specifically, the Appellant requested:

1) All contracts, correspondence, emails, memoranda of
understanding, or other written agreements (including any
amendments and modifications), relating to the [Center’s] housing
of individuals pursuant to immigration detainers or otherwise on
behalf of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
from January 1, 2024, to present.

2) Communications, whether written or electronic, along with any
accompanying documents, between the [Center], or any agent
thereof, and any agent or representative of ICE and/or the U.S.
Marshal Service related to the contract between Oldham County
and ICE [and/or U.S. Marshals] to detain individuals pursuant to
immigration detainers or otherwise on behalf of ICE. This request
includes, but is not limited to: communications and attachments
relating to requests, approvals, or denials of waivers of contract
provisions regarding the [Center].

3) Invoices, receipts, and other records of payment made pursuant to
any agreement between ICE and the [Center] and/or Oldham
County from January 1, 2024, relating to the [Center] housing
individuals pursuant to immigration detainers or otherwise on
behalf of ICE.

4) Communications regarding the revenue and/or costs to Oldham
County accruing from the use of the [Center] for immigration
detention from January 1, 2024, to present.

5) Records evidencing the average daily population and average length
of detention of people detained in ICE custody at the [Center] from
January 1, 2024, to present.

6) Complaints or grievances filed by people detained in ICE custody at
the [Center] from January 1, 2024, to present.

7) Records relating to any annual inspection of the [Center] conducted
for ICE from January 1, 2024, to present. These records include the
full annual inspection report and any documents or
communications, including emails and accompanying attachments,
relating to the inspection whether created before, during, or after
the inspection.

8) Records relating any other inspections of the [Center] conducted
from January 1, 2024 to present, including by the Office of the
Inspector General (OIG). These records include the full annual
inspection report and any documents or communications, including
emails and accompanying attachments, relating to any such
inspection(s) whether created before, during, or after the inspection.

9) Records relating to the ICE ERO Facility Significant Incident
Summary (SIS) produced in connection to [sic] any inspection(s) of
the [Center] from January 1, 2024 to present. These records include
any documents or communications, including emails and
accompany attachments, relating to the SIS report.

10) Records relating to any policies regarding the process for reviewing
and handling legal mail sent between any person in the [Center]
and their attorney.

In response, the Center denied the request, stating that under 8 C.F.R.
§ 236.6, 1 “any information regarding Immigration and Customs Enforcement must
be requested directly from Immigration and Customs Enforcement.” This appeal
followed.

When a public agency denies a request for records, it must “include a statement
of the specific exception authorizing the withholding of the record and a brief
explanation of how the exception applies to the record withheld.” KRS 61.880(1). The
agency must “provide particular and detailed information” in giving its explanation,
not merely a “limited and perfunctory response.” Edmondson v. Alig, 926 S.W.2d 856,
858 (Ky. 1996). “The agency’s explanation must be detailed enough to permit [a
reviewing] court to assess its claim and the opposing party to challenge it.” Ky. New
Era, Inc. v. City of Hopkinsville, 415 S.W.3d 76, 81 (Ky. 2013). Thus, when the agency
withholds records under KRS 61.878(1)(k), which applies to “public records or
information the disclosure of which is prohibited by federal law or regulation or state
law,” it must identify the provision of law that prohibits disclosure. See Edmondson,
926 S.W.2d at 858; see also 20-ORD-060; 97-ORD-178. Here, the Center cited 8 C.F.R.
§ 236.6 without explaining why the withheld records are exempt under that section.
Therefore, the Center’s initial response violated the Act.

On appeal, the Center has elaborated on its reliance on 8 C.F.R. § 236.6. That
regulation provides, “No . . . state or local government entity . . . that houses,
maintains, provides services to, or otherwise holds any detainee on behalf of the
Service . . . shall disclose or otherwise permit to be made public the name of, or other
information relating to, such detainee.” 8 C.F.R. § 236.6. Moreover, the regulation
also states, “Such information shall be under the control of the Service and shall be
subject to public disclosure only pursuant to the provisions of applicable federal laws,
regulations and executive orders. Insofar as any documents or other records contain
such information, such documents shall not be public records.” 2

The Appellant argues that 8 C.F.R. § 236.6 is inapplicable here because she
does not seek records that are made exempt by that regulation. Rather, she asserts
that the “requested records do not encompass records identifying individual detainees
or ongoing ICE investigations” and that 8 C.F.R. § 236.6 “does not restrict the release
of any and all records related to the facilities and conditions in which detained

1 This federal regulation is incorporated into the Act by KRS 61.878(1)(k).
2 As used in the regulation, “Service” means U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S.
Customs and Border Protection, or U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 8 C.F.R. § 1.2

noncitizens are being held.” The Office agrees. The plain language of 8 C.F.R. § 236.6
states that a local government entity like the Center may not disclose records that
would make public the “name of, or other information relating to” a detainee of the
Service. Further, any record containing that information “shall not be public records.”
Id. Thus, the regulation applied only to records related to detainees of the Service; it
does not exempt records solely related to the administration of a facility.

Turning to the Appellant’s request, the Center has not provided any
description of the records it has withheld under 8 C.F.R. § 236.6. As such, the Office
cannot find that it has adequately invoked the regulation to withhold the records. 3
However, because of the regulation’s unique declaration that any record containing
the name of or information related to a detainee of the Service is not a public record,
the Office will analyze each part of the Appellant’s request.

Parts 1–4 of the request sought records related to agreements and payments
made between the Center and ICE. The Center has not explained that any records
requested under parts 1–4 contain the names of or are related to detainees of the
Service. Therefore, the Center has not adequately explained how records responsive
to parts 1–4 of the request are exempted by 8 C.F.R. § 236.6.

Part 5 of the request seeks records showing “the average daily population and
average length of detention of people detained in ICE custody at the [Center] from
January 1, 2024, to present.” It appears to the Office that this request is more like
the request at issue in 26-ORD-138, which sought recordings detailing the date and
time of various Center actions related to detainees of the Service. As such, the Office
concludes that such records may be withheld under 8 C.F.R. § 236.6. See 26-ORD-
138.

Part 6 of the request seeks “[c]omplaints or grievances filed by people detained
in ICE custody at the [Center].” To the extent that a complaint or grievance filed by
a detainee of the Service contains that person’s name or information about them,
those records are not public records under 8 C.F.R. § 236.6. As such, the Office
concludes that such records may be withheld under 8 C.F.R. § 236.6.

Parts 7–9 of the request seek records related to inspections conducted by the
Center. The Center has not described the content of these inspections. Without any

3 Rather than describe how 8 C.F.R. § 236.6 applied to the requested records, the Center states that
it “consulted with ICE on the propriety of the disclosure” and that “counsel for ICE advised against
disclosure.” The Office does not doubt that counsel for ICE is best placed to determine whether a
particular record is exempt under 8 C.F.R. § 236.6. However, the Center did not provide an analysis
from ICE’s counsel explaining how the regulation applies to the requested records. Instead, it stated
only that that counsel “advised against disclosure.” That bare statement is insufficient for the Center
to meet its obligation under the Act to provide more than a “limited and perfunctory response.”

description of the inspections, the Office is not aware that they focused on detainees
of the Service, or focused more generally on the operation of the Center and its
facilities. This distinction is important because only records containing the name of a
detainee of the Service or other information related to him or her is exempt under 8
C.F.R. § 236.6. Thus, the Center has not adequately explained how records responsive
to parts 7–9 of the request are exempted by 8 C.F.R. § 236.6.

Finally, part 10 of the request seeks “[r]ecords relating to any policies
regarding the process for reviewing and handling legal mail sent between any person
in the [Center] and their attorney.” This request appears to seek a general policy of
the Center, not records related to specific detainees of the Service. The Center has
not explained how a general policy regarding the handling of mail would necessarily
contain the name of or information related to a detainee of the Service. Thus, the
Center has not adequately explained how records responsive to part 10 of the request
are exempted by 8 C.F.R. § 236.6.

At bottom, because the Center has not described the records it withheld, the
Office cannot find that the Center has adequately invoked 8 C.F.R. § 236.6. However,
because it is apparent that parts 5 and 6 of the request seek records that would
contain either the name of or information related to a detainee of the Service, the
Office can conclude that records responsive to those parts of the request were properly
withheld.

A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating an action in the
appropriate circuit court under KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882 within 30 days from
the date of this decision. Under KRS 61.880(3), the Attorney General shall be notified
of any action in circuit court, but shall not be named as a party in that action or in
any subsequent proceedings. The Attorney General will accept notice of the complaint
emailed to [email protected].

Russell Coleman
Attorney General

/s/ Zachary M. Zimmerer
Zachary M. Zimmerer
Assistant Attorney General

Bethany Baxter, Appellant
Jeff Tindall, Jailer, Oldham County Detention Center
Jessica Childers, Chief Deputy, Oldham County Detention Center
David Berry Baxter, Oldham County Attorney
Carol Schureck Petitt, Esq.
Kimberly Shobe