Reported by 1 source

The short version

  • ICE stopped listing thousands of detainees with final removal orders on its online locator system in mid-September.
  • Legal advocates warn the change hinders attorney-client communication and makes it difficult for families to track loved ones.
  • The move affects a significant portion of the detained population, though court orders preserve visibility for some facilities.

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency has ceased publicly disclosing the detention locations of thousands of individuals who have received final orders of removal. This unannounced operational shift, which began on September 15, removes these detainees from the agency’s online locator tool that lawyers, family members, and advocates rely on to track custody status. Current and former officials familiar with the practice indicate that the change was implemented without public notice, creating immediate confusion among those seeking information about detained individuals.

The decision represents a significant departure from previous administrative norms regarding transparency in immigration detention. By obscuring the whereabouts of people subject to final deportation orders, the agency has made it substantially more difficult for legal representatives and relatives to locate them. Several attorneys confirmed that their clients disappeared from the system during the week of September 15, prompting warnings from the American Immigration Lawyers Association about the sudden lack of visibility. The move aligns with broader enforcement strategies pursued by the Trump administration during its second term, which have prioritized rapid removals and increased pressure on detainees to waive appeals.

News Journal

Legal experts suggest that hiding detainee locations could accelerate deportation processes by impeding last-minute legal challenges. Individuals with final removal orders still possess certain rights, including the ability to seek habeas corpus petitions or request bond hearings based on constitutional grounds. Federal judges have previously granted thousands of such rulings, ordering releases or hearings for detainees. However, without knowing where a client is held, attorneys face significant logistical barriers in filing these motions or maintaining regular contact, potentially undermining the attorney-client relationship and the detainee’s ability to exercise due process protections.

The scope of this policy change is substantial. Data obtained by the Deportation Data Project, based at UC Berkeley and UCLA, indicates that nearly 16,000 people arrested and booked into ICE detention in July were subject to final removal orders. This figure represents more than a third of all bookings during that month. As of early July, ICE facilities held over 65,000 individuals, with estimates suggesting that approximately 30% of the detained population likely has final removal orders. The removal of these individuals from the public tracker affects a large segment of the detention system, raising concerns about accountability and oversight.

Not all detainees are affected by this new practice. Sources indicate that the policy does not apply to individuals held at specific facilities, including a detention center in Adelanto, California, or temporary holding sites in Minneapolis, New York City, and suburban Chicago. Judges have issued orders requiring ICE to list detainees in these locations on the online locator promptly upon arrival. These judicial mandates stem from ongoing litigation concerning detention practices and ensure that transparency remains intact for certain populations despite the broader administrative shift.

The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, has argued that individuals subject to final removal orders have already received due process. This typically involves an immigration judge ordering removal after a hearing, including cases where immigrants fail to appear, with decisions affirmed on appeal or left unchallenged. However, advocates counter that many detainees face complex legal situations, including protections against deportation to countries where they risk torture or persecution. Some are facing removal to third-party nations where they have no ties, making legal challenges even more critical and difficult to pursue without clear knowledge of their detention location.

Families and legal representatives have expressed alarm at the sudden loss of information. Greg Chen, senior director of government relations at the American Immigration Lawyers Association, noted that relatives are often left wondering if their loved ones have already been deported or simply moved to an undisclosed facility. Detainees are frequently transferred between locations before removal, a practice that becomes opaque when the primary tracking tool is disabled for specific groups. This uncertainty exacerbates anxiety and hinders efforts to provide legal support or maintain family connections during detention.

ICE did not confirm or deny the change in a statement issued to reporters, instead emphasizing that detainees with final removal orders are being prioritized for deportation. The agency also noted it faces a historic number of court injunctions stopping individual removals. Michelle Méndez, legal director at the National Immigration Project, criticized the move as another iteration of making people disappear within the U.S. system, drawing comparisons to practices in other countries that raise concerns about individual rights. As immigration courts continue to make it harder for participants to reopen cases or show up for hearings, the combination of procedural barriers and reduced transparency poses significant challenges for due process.

The implications of this policy extend beyond immediate logistical difficulties. By limiting access to basic information about detention locations, the agency may be reducing the effectiveness of legal interventions that have previously resulted in releases or bond hearings. The lack of public acknowledgment from ICE leaves many questions unanswered regarding the long-term impact on detainees’ rights and the administration’s enforcement priorities. As litigation continues and courts issue further rulings, the tension between expedited removals and constitutional protections remains a central issue in immigration policy debates.

Sources behind this briefing

Go to the original reporting