Fact check: Can legal permanent residents be detained by ICE without due process?

1. A wave of high-profile detentions raises a simple question: Are green card holders protected from ICE detention?

September 2025 accounts document several LPRs detained by ICE—some with past convictions, some with serious health issues, and others with long U.S. ties—showing that possession of lawful permanent residence does not by itself bar ICE detention or initiation of removal proceedings ^{[1] [4] [5] [9]}. Reported cases include Victor Avila detained for past convictions, Jorge Cruz arrested after dropping his children at school, and Paramjit Singh seized at an airport despite major medical conditions, highlighting how ICE exercises statutory authority to detain noncitizens, including LPRs, under certain grounds such as criminal convictions or immigration violations ^{[1] [4] [5]}.

2. Legal friction: Due process claims and denied bond hearings are multiplying in court filings.

Litigation and appeals are emerging in response to denials of bond hearings and prolonged detention, with a Sioux City man explicitly arguing that an immigration judge’s refusal to grant a bond hearing violated his Fifth Amendment rights ^[6]. Class-action suits describe squalid conditions and detention beyond court-ordered release dates, framing enforcement practices as not only punitive but potentially unconstitutional under due process and statutory protections ^[7]. These legal actions demonstrate that while the law permits detention in many circumstances, procedural safeguards and their implementation are contested ^{[6] [7]}.

3. Diversity of factual patterns: Convictions, administrative holds, and apparent errors are all present.

The reported incidents reveal three recurring factual patterns: detentions tied to criminal convictions (including decades-old offenses), administrative arrests without immediate criminal charges, and apparent wrongful or erroneous detentions of citizens and long-term residents. The case of Muhammad Zahid Chaudhry — a decorated veteran and LPR detained without criminal charges — and George Retes, a U.S. citizen held for three days, underline both legal complexity and operational error risks ^{[3] [2]}. Government data showing immigrants with no criminal record as the largest group in detention suggests a broader enforcement posture that affects many without recent crimes ^[8].

4. Conflicting narratives: Enforcement necessity versus rights protection.

ICE and enforcement proponents typically present detention as a statutory tool to secure removal proceedings and public safety; reporters and civil-rights advocates portray recent detentions as evidence of overreach, inadequate screening, or failure to follow release orders ^{[1] [9] [7]}. The media narratives exhibit competing agendas: enforcement-focused accounts cite convictions and statutory grounds, while advocates emphasize humanitarian, medical, and long-term community ties to argue for release and reform. The available reporting makes clear that context—conviction history, statutory basis, and procedural access to immigration courts—matters greatly ^{[1] [4] [5]}.

5. Data point that complicates the headlines: many detained have no recent criminal records.

Government figures noted in September 2025 show that immigrants with no criminal record became the largest detained group, with 16,523 arrests referenced in reporting, signaling a shift in enforcement that brings many noncitizens—including LPRs—into custody for administrative immigration reasons ^[8]. This statistic supports claims that detention practices extend beyond those with recent convictions and that systemic factors—like the use of detainers, information-sharing, and backlog in immigration courts—drive detention patterns ^[8].

6. Procedural gaps and health or humanitarian considerations repeatedly cited by families and attorneys.

Multiple reports highlight detainees with serious medical conditions, long community ties, or veteran status—factors that families and counsel argue should mitigate detention or weigh in favor of release ^{[5] [3] [4]}. Legal advocates stress that discretionary release mechanisms, parole, or bond are underused or inconsistently applied, and that administrative processes sometimes fail to account for humanitarian or equity considerations, increasing litigation and public scrutiny ^{[4] [5] [3]}.

7. What the reporting does not settle: the legal baseline versus operational practice.

The assembled reporting indicates clear legal authority for ICE to detain noncitizens, including many LPRs, under immigration law, but it also documents operational mistakes, prolonged detentions, and disputed denials of hearings—showing a gap between statutory text and on-the-ground practice ^{[1] [6] [7]}. The cases and data from September 2025 collectively show that the law permits detention but the adequacy of procedural protections, consistency, and humanitarian judgment are actively contested ^{[1] [8]}.

8. Bottom line for readers seeking clarity: detention is lawful but contested; remedies are emerging in courts.

In short, ICE can detain LPRs under immigration law, and recent September 2025 reporting documents numerous instances that raise due process and policy questions prompting litigation, class actions, and public debate ^{[1] [9] [6]}. The factual record shows both lawful detentions based on convictions and troubling administrative detentions or delays that courts and advocates are challenging, leaving the legal landscape as a mix of statutory authority and ongoing constitutional dispute ^{[7] [8]}.