They were detained by ICE. Then they vanished.

ICE Increases Frequency of Detainee Transfers Across Facilities

Abdullahi Mohamed was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement near Portland, Maine, in October 2025 during a scheduled check-in. He had entered the United States from Somalia in 1999, received a removal order in 2001 that was upheld on appeal in 2002, and remained under an order of supervision that required periodic reporting to ICE. Federal records indicate deportations to Somalia were limited for years due to the absence of a functioning central government. Mohamed had no criminal convictions and maintained work authorization while living in Maine.

After more than seven weeks in a Massachusetts facility, ICE moved him through multiple states over approximately five days. Family members received updates through his attorney and a call from another detainee’s relative. One call from Mohamed originated from an airport. An email from his attorney stated that transfers without prior notice had increased and could limit attorney access and complicate jurisdiction for filings. Mohamed was later deported to Somalia.

ICE data analyzed by the Marshall Project show that the number of detainees transferred five or more times rose more than threefold from the final year of the prior administration to the first year of the current term. Transfers to another state within 24 hours more than doubled. In the first year of the current administration, ICE recorded nearly 41,700 out-of-state transfers within one day of detention, affecting more than one in ten detainees.

An ICE spokesperson stated that claims of transfers being used to interfere with legal processes are false and that all detainees receive due process. The agency reported that detainees have access to telephones, receive lists of legal service providers, and can be located through the agency’s online system. The spokesperson noted that the Department of Homeland Security continues removal operations despite court orders affecting detention practices.

Immigration attorneys have stated that rapid transfers can create periods when a detainee’s location is not reflected in real time on the locator tool, limiting phone access during transit. César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández, a law professor at Ohio State University, described situations in which attorneys or family members arrive at a facility and are informed that the individual is no longer there. Cassandra Charles, a senior staff attorney at the National Immigration Law Center, said transfers can move cases from one federal district to another before filings are completed.

In July 2025, the Department of Homeland Security issued a new interpretation of provisions in the 1996 immigration statute. Under this reading, individuals who entered without inspection could be treated as arriving aliens ineligible for bond hearings before immigration judges, regardless of time spent in the United States. In September 2025, the Board of Immigration Appeals adopted this interpretation as nationwide precedent, limiting immigration judges’ authority to order release in certain cases.

Habeas corpus petitions challenging detention must generally be filed in the district where the individual is held. Attorneys reported that repeated transfers require refiling in new districts. More than 200 such petitions were filed daily in federal courts earlier in the year.

Federal appeals courts have reached differing conclusions on the policy. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the administration’s position. That circuit covers Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, which contain 14 of the 20 largest ICE detention facilities. In the first year of the current term, nearly three-quarters of individuals deported by ICE had last been held in a Fifth Circuit state. Dan Gividen, a former ICE deputy chief counsel, stated that placement decisions can affect which court reviews a case.

Transfers have been used by ICE for operational reasons including bed availability, medical needs, and security classifications. The agency maintains a network of hundreds of facilities. Attorneys have noted that the combination of the new detention policy and transfer patterns has increased the number of cases directed to districts within the Fifth Circuit.

Family members of Mohamed stated that they received no direct notifications from ICE regarding the sequence of transfers. Mohamed’s sister and niece described the period as one in which information arrived only after the fact. ICE maintains that its locator tool and telephone access provisions allow contact with counsel and relatives.

Data from the Deportation Data Project, obtained through public records requests, formed the basis for the Marshall Project’s count of transfers. The analysis compared records from the final year of the Biden administration with those from the first year of the Trump administration. No independent audit of the underlying data was reported in the analysis.

The legal changes and transfer practices have produced ongoing litigation in multiple federal districts. Outcomes remain subject to further appellate review, as courts continue to address challenges to the scope of detention authority.