Keep Factually independent

Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.

Loading...Time left: ...
Loading...Goal: $500

Fact check: How does ICE prioritize who gets detained during immigration enforcement operations?

Checked on October 12, 2025

Executive Summary

ICE’s stated prioritization — focusing on criminal aliens and threats to public safety — conflicts with recent ICE data showing a substantial rise in detentions of people with no criminal record, now the largest group in detention. Reporting and legal filings also show ICE frequently conducts arrests at court hearings, workplaces, and community settings, raising concerns about tactics and due process [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].

1. What advocates and data say is happening, in plain terms

Recent federal data analyses report that immigrants without criminal records have become the single largest cohort in ICE detention, with 16,523 people detained, surpassing those with convictions or pending charges, a shift that directly contradicts the administration’s rhetoric about targeting only “criminal aliens” [1]. The same datasets show a dramatic percentage increase — described as a 1,271% rise since the start of the administration’s second term — which supporters of stricter enforcement cite as evidence of expanded operations while critics view that surge as evidence of broken prioritization rules [2].

2. Where and how arrests are occurring — courtroom arrests and workplace raids

Field reporting from San Francisco and Omaha indicates ICE often executes arrests at federal immigration court hearings, where officers find it “convenient” to detain respondents, and in large-scale workplace raids such as the Glenn Valley Foods operation in Omaha that resulted in roughly 100 detentions and broad community disruption [3] [4]. These operational patterns suggest ICE is using settings where subjects are already located and identifiable rather than relying solely on criminal referrals, and they underscore a tactical emphasis on accessibility and efficiency during enforcement sweeps [3] [4].

3. Consequences of the shift: detention logistics and capacity pressures

Parallel reporting shows that the increase in detainees without criminal histories is colliding with capacity constraints: ICE is detaining so many people that facilities are straining to find enough beds, highlighting the logistical consequences of broadened enforcement [6]. This dynamic amplifies political pressure from both critics — who decry mass detention of non-criminals — and defenders — who point to administrative authority to detain removable noncitizens — leaving policymakers grappling with resource, legal, and humanitarian trade-offs [6] [1].

4. Legal and civil-rights flags: alleged unlawful arrests and court scrutiny

Legal filings from Chicago and other jurisdictions allege that some ICE operations have included warrantless or probable-cause–deficient arrests, even resulting in the detention of U.S. citizens in at least three cases, according to recent court filings that argue ICE violated an existing consent decree [5]. These allegations, if substantiated, would show a mismatch between enforcement methods and established legal safeguards, prompting calls for judicial oversight and clearer guidance to prevent constitutional violations during enforcement campaigns [5].

5. Reconciling official priorities with observed practice — two competing narratives

The administration’s declared priority has been to remove violent or dangerous criminals, yet the data and field reporting present a different picture: large numbers of noncriminal migrants being arrested at courts and workplaces. Supporters of the enforcement surge frame the shift as correctional breadth — targeting immigration violations broadly — while critics argue it demonstrates policy drift and mission creep away from narrow criminal-targeting priorities [2] [3]. Both narratives rely on different definitions of “priority” and on whether civil immigration violations should equate to detention priority.

6. Gaps and missing context that matter for public understanding

Available reporting highlights trends and tactics but omits granular breakdowns that would clarify policy intent: there is limited public-facing data in these pieces about how many noncriminal detainees had prior deportation orders, pending immigration cases, or other aggravating factors that ICE might cite to justify detention. The absence of routine public case-level transparency leaves room for varied interpretations and limits independent verification of whether detentions align with official priorities [1] [2] [6].

7. Implications for policy, courts, and communities going forward

This mix of data and reporting suggests three likely pressure points: courts will continue to scrutinize arrest methods and potential rights violations, legislators and advocates will demand clearer prioritization policies and transparency, and communities affected by workplace and courthouse arrests will press for mitigations to reduce disruption. The policy debate centers on whether enforcement should emphasize swift removal of all immigration violators or refocus on violent offenders while expanding alternatives to detention for others [5] [4] [6].

8. Bottom line: what the evidence actually shows right now

Current government numbers and investigative reporting show a real and measurable increase in detention of immigrants without criminal records and a pattern of arrests in accessible settings like courts and workplaces, creating tension with official claims of narrow criminal-focused priorities. The facts point to expanded enforcement reach, operational convenience, capacity strain, and rising legal challenges, making transparency, judicial oversight, and clearer public data the most important missing elements for resolving competing interpretations of ICE’s priorities [1] [2] [3] [5] [4] [6].

Want to dive deeper?
What are the guidelines for ICE agents to determine who to detain during raids?
How does ICE use risk assessment tools to prioritize detention?
What role does the ICE National Detention Standards manual play in detention decisions?
Can ICE detain individuals with pending asylum claims or other forms of relief?
How does the ICE detention prioritization process differ for families versus single adults?