ICE Is Hiring Lawyers in Nashville. There Is a Strong Case for Supporting Them.

Removal cases require a process, and the government's side of that process requires lawyers. The Scene raises real controversies about enforcement. It does not show that recruiting attorneys is one of them.

ICE needs attorneys to present immigration cases, and Nashville should welcome qualified people willing to take on that responsibility.

A functioning immigration system requires enforceable rules, fair procedures, and people capable of doing the legal work. Supporting that work is a reasonable position. Government service should not become disreputable simply because the agency's mission is politically contested.

The Nashville Scene's coverage places attorney recruitment against a backdrop of controversy over immigration enforcement. Readers should examine those controversies. They should also ask a separate question: What, specifically, is wrong with hiring attorneys to represent the government?

Opposition to an administration's policies does not answer that question. Neither does an attorney's understandable preference to represent people facing removal rather than the government seeking it. Both roles deserve to be evaluated by professional conduct, competence, and respect for the law.

What the Scene reported

• The letters. A form letter, reviewed by the Scene, invites practicing attorneys to work for ICE's Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, known as OPLA, litigating "a wide range of removal cases" in Nashville and Franklin.
• The office. OPLA leased space in MetroCenter earlier this year. The nearest immigration court is in Memphis.
• The benefit. The letter notes OPLA's eligibility for federal loan forgiveness, which the Scene describes as a possible salary "sweetener."
• The reaction. An anonymous Nashville immigration lawyer called it "the exact opposite of what I do now." Will York of Ozment Law said "most of the time, these attorneys are fighting to deport non-violent family members."
• What is missing. No salary figures, no count beyond "multiple" lawyers, and no ICE response beyond a referral.

The process needs lawyers on the government's side

Federal law does not let anyone be removed by announcement. Removal is decided in proceedings before immigration judges, and the government is a party that has to be represented in them. Someone has to file the charges, present the evidence, answer the respondent's arguments, and answer to the judge. Those are the attorneys ICE is recruiting. A system that wants fair procedure cannot also want the government's side left unstaffed.

The Scene's framing proves less than it implies

The story connects recruitment to the wider fight over enforcement. Those are separate questions. The Scene reports allegations about joint Highway Patrol and ICE operations in southeast Nashville, including claims of racial profiling and civil rights abuses, and notes that many people arrested locally had no criminal history. Those claims are serious and deserve scrutiny from courts and investigators. But they concern how particular operations were carried out. By themselves, they do not establish anything improper about a recruitment letter or the lawyers who might answer it.

• The anonymous lawyer. A preference for defending people over prosecuting cases is honest and understandable. It is a statement about one lawyer's career, not about whether the government's lawyers should exist.
• Will York's quote. It is a view about the outcomes of removal cases. Those outcomes turn on statutes Congress wrote and on judges' rulings, not on whether the government's lawyer was recruited by letter.
• ICE's popularity. The story notes ICE has become broadly unpopular. That is a political fact. It is not a professional standard for the lawyers who work there.

Recruiting qualified attorneys deserves a fair hearing

The Scene describes the loan-forgiveness line as a possible sweetener. Federal loan forgiveness for public service is a standard benefit across government, available to people who work for agencies of every kind. Mentioning it in a recruiting letter is how a public employer competes for talent. We would want the government's side of any courtroom staffed by capable, well-prepared lawyers, whatever the agency, and we would say the same about the lawyers on the other side.

Necessary, but not sufficient

Competent government counsel is a necessary part of a fair process. It is not the whole of one. Fair outcomes also depend on judges with the time to decide cases carefully, on adequate resources for the courts, and on a meaningful opportunity for the person facing removal to respond and be heard. TRAC's tracking of the immigration court backlog put pending cases above 3 million at the end of 2025, and no single category of hire solves that. Supporting qualified government attorneys and insisting on those other safeguards are positions that fit together.

The standard