top of page

PR Supreme Court dismisses gov’t suit to stop release of immigrant data.

  • Writer: The San Juan Daily Star
    The San Juan Daily Star
  • 3 hours ago
  • 3 min read
By providing information to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the ACLU of Puerto Rico noted, the Transportation and Public Works secretary endangered immigrants who relied on a process created in 2013 that allowed them to obtain driver’s licenses and included assurances that information about immigration status would not be used for immigration purposes. (US DHS)
By providing information to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the ACLU of Puerto Rico noted, the Transportation and Public Works secretary endangered immigrants who relied on a process created in 2013 that allowed them to obtain driver’s licenses and included assurances that information about immigration status would not be used for immigration purposes. (US DHS)

By THE STAR STAFF


The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico dismissed a request by the Puerto Rico Department of Transportation and Public Works (DTOP by its acronym in Spanish) to review lower-court rulings that found the subpoena tied to the release of personal data on thousands of immigrants to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is a public document.


The decision leaves in place orders requiring DTOP to provide the subpoena to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Puerto Rico.


“This Supreme Court decision confirms, once again, that the Secretary of DTOP has the obligation to make public the alleged subpoena and any document related to the voluntary surrender of personal data of thousands of immigrants in Puerto Rico, to whom the government itself had promised confidentiality under Law 97 of 2013,” ACLU of Puerto Rico Executive Director Annette Martínez Orabona said in a written statement.


The ACLU of Puerto Rico filed suit on Oct. 1, 2025, after DTOP Secretary Edwin González Montalvo declined to comply with a public information request seeking details on how the agency handled and responded to a subpoena linked to the Puerto Rico Police and ICE, according to the organization.


After a hearing, the Court of First Instance ordered DTOP to release the subpoena, ruling that it was not confidential as the agency argued. DTOP did not comply and appealed; the Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s decision in January. DTOP then sought review at the island Supreme Court.


The Supreme Court considered the certiorari petition filed by the DTOP secretary -- represented by the Puerto Rico Department of Justice -- through a three-judge panel composed of Associate Justices Mildred Pabón Charneco, Luis Estrella Martínez and Raúl Candelario López. The resolution is dated April 17 but was made public last Friday.


A 10-day period is now running in which DTOP can ask the Supreme Court to reconsider.


“Our call to the Secretary of DTOP is to comply with the order to hand over the information, in recognition of the unequivocal conclusion that the information he is trying to keep hidden is public, and that the country has the right to know how and why decisions are made, in this case related to immigrant communities in Puerto Rico,” ACLU of Puerto Rico Legal Director Fermín Arraiza Navas said.


By providing information to ICE, the ACLU of Puerto Rico noted, the DTOP secretary endangered immigrants who relied on a process created in 2013 that allowed them to obtain driver’s licenses and included assurances that information about immigration status would not be used for immigration purposes, the ACLU said. The rights group added that the administration of Gov. Jenniffer González Colón violated local law by turning over the data.


In its January decision, the Court of Appeals emphasized that access to information is recognized in Puerto Rico as a fundamental human and constitutional right. The court said it had determined that the subpoena at issue is a public document subject to disclosure.


The appellate court also rejected arguments that the document should be withheld due to “ongoing investigations” or “public safety,” and stated that the government had not identified any statute or regulation -- federal or local -- that bars a recipient of a federal subpoena from disclosing it. It also dismissed claims that releasing the document would impact an investigation, noting: “We are not dealing with a document whose disclosure could in any way affect the course of an investigation.”

bottom of page