Legal Groups Sue ICE Over Withheld Detainee Locations

Four organizations providing legal services to immigrants have filed a lawsuit against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The lawsuit challenges a recent policy that stops ICE from providing the locations of detained immigrants who have final removal orders. This change, which began in September 2026, makes it difficult for families and lawyers to find and communicate with these individuals. The plaintiffs argue that this withholding of information violates legal rights and hinders access to legal counsel.

The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The legal groups involved are Greater Boston Legal Services, Rian Immigrant Center, Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, and Amica Center for Immigrant Rights. They are being represented by the National Immigration Law Center, National Immigration Project, American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Massachusetts, and Annelise Araujo Law.

Policy Change Affects Thousands of Detainees

The lawsuit, titled Greater Boston Legal Services et al. v. Mullin, states that the government has stopped sharing detainee locations through the Online Detainee Locator System. ICE is also no longer responding to location requests from relatives and attorneys for individuals with final removal orders. This system had been in place for over 16 years, allowing families and lawyers to track individuals as they moved between detention centers. The plaintiffs claim this new restriction makes it much harder to communicate with current and potential clients.

According to the lawsuit, this policy affects more than 20,000 people, which is about 30 percent of all individuals in ICE detention. The Department of Homeland Security has stated that detained individuals have multiple ways to communicate and that the department is focusing on removing those with final orders. However, the legal groups argue that the current methods are insufficient and create significant barriers.

Challenges in Locating Detained Individuals

Lawyers have reported spending more time trying to find clients and potential clients since the policy change. Calls to the agency’s detention information line often result in long wait times, dropped calls, or a lack of useful information. Some attorneys have attempted to use a program that schedules legal calls, but only a small number of detention centers participate in this program.

The difficulty in locating individuals has led to delays or missed legal filings. It has also resulted in legal services groups taking on fewer cases. This is especially problematic because some legal remedies must be pursued before a person can be deported. The organizations argue that individuals who cannot reach their legal counsel or a court may lose the opportunity to seek these remedies within the necessary timeframes.

A separate case involving Ann Lawani, though not part of the Massachusetts lawsuit, illustrates the problem. After federal agents detained her at her California home on September 16, 2026, her family and lawyer were unable to find her using the online database. Her family later learned she was in Louisiana. Her attorney, Natalia Vieira Santanna, noted that this search was unusually difficult because no one would provide her location.

Allegations of Legal Violations

The complaint argues that the new policy violates the Administrative Procedure Act because the government did not provide an explanation for its adoption. It also claims that the restriction infringes on the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights by interfering with lawyers’ ability to inform people about their rights and to seek out new clients. Furthermore, the groups allege a violation of the Freedom of Information Act, stating that the government failed to publish details about this policy.

The plaintiffs are asking the court to cancel this policy. On October 28, 2026, the legal groups announced they would soon file a motion to temporarily halt the policy while the court case proceeds. The status of this requested relief from the Massachusetts court is still unclear. Developments regarding the stay motion can be followed on the National Immigration Law Center’s case page.

Frequently Asked Questions