How do ICE’s Requests for Notification differ in practice and legal effect from I-247 detainer forms?

1. What the forms actually say and request

Under PEP, ICE split the old I-247 into two documents: a Request for Voluntary Notification (I-247N) that asks the receiving law enforcement agency (LEA) to notify ICE at least 48 hours prior to release, and a detainer/hold form (I-247D or the consolidated I-247A when implemented) that asks the LEA to maintain custody for up to 48 hours beyond the person’s otherwise scheduled release so ICE can take custody ^{[1] [4] [2]}.

2. How they differ in routine practice

Despite the stated shift toward notification, contemporaneous oversight and data found ICE continued issuing hold requests much more often than purely notification requests; TRAC and American Immigration Council reporting showed four out of five I-247s early in PEP were hold-style detainers and the notification form was “rarely” used, meaning in practice the more intrusive custody requests persisted ^{[4] [5] [3]}.

3. The legal effect and limits on authority

A detainer request is not a judicial warrant; federal guidance and courts have repeatedly characterized detainers as requests—not binding orders—so compliance by state or local agencies is voluntary and constrained by state law and constitutional limits, but if honored the effect is that an individual is detained beyond when they would otherwise be released, enabling ICE to assume custody ^{[6] [7] [8]}.

4. Notification requests: legal footprint and operational reality

The I-247N’s legal effect is narrower: it asks only for advance notice of release, not extended custody, and therefore does not itself authorize an arrest or new period of detention; operationally, however, jurisdictions that decline notification still face political and public-safety rhetoric from DHS about “declinations” and related consequences, and ICE has signaled it would track jurisdictions that do not cooperate ^{[1] [9] [10]}.

5. Consequences for individuals, LEAs, and the tug-of-war over cooperation

When a LEA honors a detainer it can result in individuals being held extra hours and transferred to ICE before local criminal processes conclude, but courts have found that holding someone on a civil immigration request can raise Fourth Amendment and state-law issues and that many jurisdictions refuse to honor detainers for that reason; notification requests produce fewer immediate liberty impacts on individuals but can still lead to post-release ICE arrests if ICE does not get timely notice ^{[11] [12] [10]}.

6. Why policy, data, and messaging diverge — and who benefits

ICE framed notification forms as a reform to limit fishing expeditions and focus resources on priority offenders, but analyses by TRAC and advocacy groups documented persistent issuance of hold detainers including against people without convictions, suggesting either uneven implementation or an operational preference for custody requests; agencies pushing for cooperation emphasize public-safety rationales while localities declining holds cite constitutional risk and community-policing harms, revealing distinct institutional incentives that shape which form matters in practice ^{[5] [4] [13]}.

7. Bottom line for legal effect and everyday practice

Legally, a Request for Notification imposes far less immediate detention power than an I-247 detainer request: one seeks a phone call, the other seeks up to 48 extra hours of custody—yet in real-world use ICE continued to issue custody requests frequently and the practical outcome depends on whether the local jurisdiction honors the request, on state law, and on ICE’s timeliness in assuming custody ^{[1] [2] [3]}.