Supreme Court rejects DTOP petition: order to disclose subpoena on immigrant data remains in effect

San Juan, P.R. – The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico dismissed with a “no cause” the petition from the Department of Transportation and Public Works (DTOP) to review the determinations of the lower courts which concluded that the subpoena that led to the voluntary delivery of data from thousands of immigrant persons to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is a public document. The determination keeps in effect the order to deliver said document to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Puerto Rico.

"This resolution from the Supreme Court confirms, once again, that the secretary of the DTOP has the obligation to make public the alleged subpoena and any document attached to the voluntary delivery of the personal data of thousands of immigrant persons in Puerto Rico, to whom the government itself had promised confidentiality by virtue of Law 97 of 2013," said attorney Annette Martínez Orabona, executive director of the ACLU of Puerto Rico.

The ACLU of Puerto Rico filed a lawsuit on October 1, 2025, after the secretary of the DTOP, Edwin González Montalvo, refused to comply with a request for access to public information submitted by the organization to learn how the agency handled and responded to the requirement made by ICE to the state agency. After an argumentative hearing, the TPI ordered the DTOP to deliver the subpoena—a requirement issued by an agency or administrative authority—maintaining that the document was not confidential, as the DTOP alleged. The agency failed to comply with the order and instead turned to the Court of Appeals, which confirmed the TPI's determination in January. The DTOP then turned to the highest judicial forum.

In the Supreme Court, the petition for certiorari presented by the secretary of the DTOP—who is represented by Justice—was attended by a three-judge panel composed of Associate Judge Pabón Charneco and Associate Judges Estrella Martínez and Candelario López. The resolution was issued on April 17 but reported last Friday. A ten-day period is now underway, within which the DTOP can request a reconsideration from the Supreme Court.

"Our call to the secretary of the DTOP is to comply with the delivery order, in recognition of the unequivocal conclusion that the information it attempts 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," said attorney Fermín Arraiza Navas, legal director of the ACLU of Puerto Rico.

By delivering the information to ICE, the secretary of the DTOP endangered the safety of thousands of immigrants who trusted the government of Puerto Rico when, in 2013, a process was enabled by law for them to have access to a driver's license and were promised that their information regarding immigration status would not be used for immigration purposes. Twelve years later, the administration of Governor Jenniffer González Colón failed to comply with what the state law itself established by delivering the information to ICE, the ACLU of Puerto Rico pointed out.

"In Puerto Rico, the right of access to information is recognized as a human and constitutional right of fundamental rank," the Appeals Court emphasized in its decision issued in January. "We determine that the subpoena subject to the information request presented to the DTOP by the ACLU is a public document subject to disclosure," the Appeals Court held.

The conclusion, then, also confirmed that the DTOP and the Department of Justice tried to shield themselves behind generalities about “ongoing investigations” and “public safety” to hide a document that should never have been secret. In that sense, the ACLU of Puerto Rico reiterated that both the request for information from ICE and the voluntary delivery by the DTOP respond to a persecution operation against immigrant persons who trusted the State when applying for a driver's license.

"We reiterate that the courts are called to be cautious when granting any request for confidentiality from the State, and that it is the government itself that must unequivocally prove the applicability of any of the exceptions, rather than resting on mere generalizations. In that sense, we maintain that opacity in public affairs must be treated with suspicion and limited, as an exception, to matters of great importance," the Appeals Court stated.

The Court was explicit in rejecting the idea that the local government was prevented from disclosing the subpoena and highlighted that the government could not name "the existence of any statute or regulation, federal or local, that prohibits whoever receives a federal subpoena from disclosing the same."

Similarly, the Appeals Court discarded the government's narrative that the disclosure of the document would affect an alleged ongoing investigation. "We are not dealing with a document whose disclosure could in any way affect the course of an investigation," it noted.

You can see more details about this case and find documents at this link.