ICE Detainee Locator Lawsuit Over Final-Order Detainees

Four legal aid organizations sued the Department of Homeland Security in federal court in Boston on Oct. 28 to force the ICE detainee locator to show people held with final removal orders again. Since September, those detainees have dropped out of the public Online Detainee Locator System, and the groups say families and lawyers can no longer find them before they are deported.

The case, Greater Boston Legal Services v. Mullin, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts by Greater Boston Legal Services, the Rian Immigrant Center, the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project and the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, according to an announcement from the ACLU, one of the groups representing them.

The timing matters. People with final orders are the detainees ICE says it is moving out fastest, and the ones for whom a last-minute court filing can still make a difference. Knowing where they are held is, in practice, how a lawyer reaches the right courthouse before the plane leaves.

What changed in the ICE detainee locator, and for how many people

Starting Sept. 15, detainees with removal orders stopped appearing in the online locator, KPBS reported, citing the Associated Press. The Boston Globe, also citing AP reporting, said staff were told not to reveal those detainees’ whereabouts, and that as of last month the change affected more than 16,000 of the nearly 69,000 people then in ICE custody, about 23 percent of the detained population, based on those figures. The plaintiffs say the policy also covers direct questions from relatives and attorneys, not only the website.

DHS and ICE have not publicly confirmed the change, the Globe reported, and they did not respond to its request for comment on the suit. The agencies have said they are prioritizing people with final orders for removal and deny that anyone is being “disappeared,” pointing out that detainees can make phone calls. An ICE spokesperson told KPBS that DHS is “working rapidly and overtime” to remove detainees with final orders, and the agency said a detainee may be missing from the locator for other reasons, including being in transit or at the person’s own request.

Why a database turns into a habeas problem

Nothing in the Immigration and Nationality Act requires ICE to run a public locator. The system was a policy choice, first put in place under the Obama administration, according to the AP account carried by KPBS. Its legal weight comes from somewhere else: federal habeas law. Under Rumsfeld v. Padilla (2004), a core habeas challenge to physical custody generally must be filed in the district where the person is confined, and the Supreme Court applied the same rule to Alien Enemies Act detainees in Trump v. J.G.G. in 2025. A lawyer who does not know which state a client is in cannot easily pick the right court.

For people with final orders, the remaining routes are usually a habeas petition, an emergency stay request or a motion to reopen, all of which depend on speed. Federal judges are already fielding such fights, from an order barring ICE from moving a detainee outside New York and New Jersey and judges in Minnesota and Pennsylvania confronting re-arrests after habeas releases and holding officials in civil contempt.

The legal theory and its limits

According to the ACLU announcement, the suit makes three claims: that the change is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, that it violates the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights, and that DHS broke the Freedom of Information Act by not publishing the new policy. The groups ask the court to vacate the policy and say they will soon seek a stay while the case proceeds.

The APA claim is likely to be the center of the fight. Under FCC v. Fox Television Stations (2009), an agency that reverses course must acknowledge the change and give reasons, and DHS v. Regents (2020) requires it to weigh reliance on the old policy, such as legal aid groups that have used the locator for years. The government’s likely answer is that a voluntary database creates no enforceable right and that detainees can still call out. Much may turn on what record DHS produces for a change it has not formally announced.

Vacatur would restore the old practice for everyone, which matters while the Justice Department is asking the Supreme Court to limit universal vacatur. The next step to watch is the stay motion and the government’s first response.

A question families are asking

My relative has a final removal order and disappeared from the ICE detainee locator. Does that mean they were deported?

Not necessarily. Since September, people held with final orders have stopped appearing in the locator even while still in custody, as the plaintiffs’ announcement, the Boston Globe and KPBS all report. ICE has also said detainees can be missing from the system while being transported. A blank result for someone with a final order now says little about whether the person is still detained in the United States.

This article is for general information and is not legal advice.

Sources

Vasanth Vaidyanathan, Esq.

Administrator

Vasanth Vaidyanathan is an immigration attorney with over 20 years of experience focused exclusively on U.S. immigration and nationality law. He holds a LL.M. from California Western School of Law, San Deigo and advises individuals and businesses on employment and family-based immigration matters, including H-1B, PERM, EB categories, and adjustment of status. He has also been a featured speaker at immigration seminars across the U.S. To reach Vasanth visit: https://www.vnathan.com/

Author's website Author's posts