Is there credible evidence that ICE is illegally detaining people?
Executive summary
There is credible, documented evidence that ICE has engaged in unlawful detentions in specific cases and systemic practices widely criticized as unlawful or unconstitutional by advocacy groups, lawyers and some courts; contemporaneous government data and agency defenses complicate—but do not negate—those findings [1] [2] [3]. The record shows a surge in detentions of people without criminal convictions, multiple lawsuits and press accounts alleging warrantless or constitutionally defective arrests, and instances of wrongful custody that provide a basis to say illegal detention is occurring in identifiable instances and patterns [4] [1] [5].
1. Evidence from litigation and civil-rights groups: documented unlawful arrests
Nonprofit legal centers and law‑suits provide direct, case‑level evidence that ICE has detained people unlawfully: the National Immigrant Justice Center and partners filed federal litigation seeking release for 22 people they say were unlawfully arrested—some including U.S. citizens—and challenged warrantless “collateral” arrests as lacking probable cause [1]. Academic and legal commentary has catalogued similar constitutional claims by citizens and noncitizens challenging the lawfulness of ICE detentions [2]. Those filings are precise, on‑the‑record allegations that courts must adjudicate, and constitute credible documentary evidence of illegal detention in particular instances [1] [2].
2. Systemic indicators that raise a legal red flag: mass detention of non‑criminals and oversight gaps
Independent data show an unprecedented expansion of ICE custody in 2025–26 with a large share of detainees lacking criminal convictions—TRAC and other reporting put roughly 73–75% of those in custody without criminal convictions at points in late 2025—creating conditions in which wrongful or unnecessary detention is more likely and raising questions about compliance with detention law and policy [4] [5]. Reports from the American Immigration Council and advocacy outlets document a sharp shift toward interior arrests, so‑called “at‑large” sweeps, and other tactics that lawyers say bypass procedural safeguards and have resulted in people with no criminal record being detained [6] [4].
3. Harms, deaths, and restricted oversight that strengthen claims of illegality
A spike in deaths in custody—30+ in 2025 and additional deaths in early 2026—and media accounts of overcrowding and restricted congressional access have fueled legal and constitutional challenges that contend ICE’s operations are unlawful when they produce preventable harm or operate beyond statutory limits [7] [5] [8]. These outcomes do not by themselves prove illegality in every case, but they corroborate plaintiffs’ claims and motivate judicial and legislative scrutiny [7] [8].
4. The government’s counterclaims and their relevance
DHS and ICE publicly defend the surge in arrests and detentions as law‑enforcement priorities—arguing they target “the worst of the worst” and pointing to criminal arrests and operational successes—while publishing agency statistics that they say confirm lawful, necessary enforcement [9] [3]. That defense is an important countervailing record: it means allegations of illegality are contested in court and public debate, and that determinations of lawfulness require case‑by‑case adjudication and careful review of agency practices [9] [3].
5. Bottom line: credible evidence exists, but the picture is mixed and needs legal sorting
Taken together, contemporaneous lawsuits alleging warrantless arrests, legal analyses of constitutional claims, independent detention data showing mass custody of non‑criminals, and reporting on deaths and oversight restrictions amount to credible evidence that illegal detentions by ICE have occurred in specific instances and as part of broader patterns that raise legal concerns [1] [2] [4] [5]. However, the government’s published statistics and policy claims mean that broad, categorical judgments about every ICE detention cannot be made without courtroom findings or comprehensive independent investigations; existing reporting documents credible instances and systemic risk but does not resolve each case’s legality [9] [3].