What did the Priority Enforcement Program change about ICE detainers and how did cities respond?
Executive summary
The Priority Enforcement Program (PEP), announced in November 2014, narrowed the circumstances under which ICE would request that local jails hold or notify on people suspected of being removable, replacing the blunt I-247 detainer with new forms that require ICE to identify enforcement priorities and assert probable cause before seeking a hold or notification [1] [2]. Cities and localities responded unevenly: some adopted local laws and policies to limit cooperation with ICE, while advocates and legal groups argued PEP was largely cosmetic and that many jurisdictions continued to refuse or restrict honoring detainers [3] [4] [5].
1. What PEP actually changed about detainer paperwork and standards
PEP replaced the single Form I-247 used under Secure Communities with a suite of new forms—most notably Form I-247N (request for notification), Form I-247D (request for voluntary action to hold for up to 48 hours), and Form I-247X for other transfers—and required ICE to identify which DHS enforcement priority applied and to assert probable cause before seeking a custodial hold [2] [6] [7]. ICE’s public materials emphasize that under PEP it will “only seek transfer of individuals in state and local custody in specific, limited circumstances,” focusing on convicted criminals, national security threats, gang participants and those posing danger [1] [2].
2. The legal and procedural limits PEP intended to impose
Beyond new forms, PEP was explicitly designed to narrow when ICE would ask local law enforcement to prolong custody: notification requests replace many blanket hold requests, and when a detainer-like request is made ICE is supposed to identify probable cause and the enforcement priority that justifies the request [2] [7]. The program also built on Jeh Johnson’s 2014 enforcement priorities, signaling an administrative intent to prioritize certain categories over broad, automatic screening [1] [8].
3. Why advocates called PEP cosmetic and courts continued to limit detainers
Immigrant-rights groups and defense practitioners warned that PEP preserved the same mechanics—automatic biometric screening and the ability to generate hold requests—that had allowed mass referrals to ICE under Secure Communities, calling PEP largely cosmetic changes to the form without guaranteeing practice change [4] [9] [10]. Independent tracking found that in early FY2016 ICE still issued many I-247-style requests for people with no convictions, raising questions about compliance with the new priorities [3]. Civil liberties groups had also pursued litigation and local legislation that already limited honoring of detainers on constitutional grounds, pressuring localities to refuse holds even before or regardless of PEP [11] [5].
4. How cities and local agencies actually responded on the ground
Responses varied: some jurisdictions enacted formal limits—city councils and state laws curtailed police and jail cooperation, requiring warrants or court orders before honoring a federal detainer—while many local law enforcement agencies adopted policies refusing to detain people solely on ICE requests [5] [11]. Other jurisdictions continued to cooperate with ICE under memoranda or voluntary arrangements; ICE’s central fingerprint-checking system meant that local bookings still generated immigration referrals even where officials tried to limit cooperation [7] [10].
5. The practical effect and remaining uncertainties
Data and advocacy reports suggest PEP reduced some public justification for blanket holds by forcing ICE to state priorities and probable cause, but critics show ICE continued to issue requests for non-priority individuals and that the underlying biometric-sharing architecture remained intact—meaning the shift was partial and implementation uneven [3] [9]. Source documents and advocacy materials document both the intended policy shift (ICE) and the skepticism from legal advocates who argue that without structural changes to how bookings feed federal databases and without mandatory legal limits, PEP could be circumnavigated [1] [4] [10]. Reporting and research cited here draw from ICE’s own PEP materials and independent analyses by immigration advocacy and watchdog groups; available sources do not provide a definitive national tally of how many detainers were declined or honored post-PEP, so some implementation questions remain open [2] [3].