4 hours ago
7
For five years, an asylum-seeking woman attended routine check-ins with immigration authorities without issue. At her most recent appointment in October, she was unexpectedly ordered to strap on an ankle monitor, according to her attorney, Deepa Bijpuria.
Bijpuria, a supervising attorney in the immigration unit of Legal Aid DC, described the client as a single mom who fled her home country because of severe domestic violence, escaping while pregnant with her young daughter.
“[The order] was just such a shift after she’d been complying for years while waiting for her asylum application to be heard and decided,” she said.
Bijpuria said the working mom, who declined an interview and requested anonymity due to her vulnerable situation, lost at least one job after receiving the ankle monitor.
Bijpuria’s client is not the only immigrant to be blindsided by ankle monitor requirements. US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) uses electronic monitoring through its Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program, which was formally implemented in 2004 to ensure that immigrants comply with legal obligations while their cases proceed without being placed in detention.
ATD compliance methods also include mobile apps and telephone check-ins. But Evan Benz, a senior attorney at the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, said there has been a “market shift” towards utilizing ankle monitors following a June 2025 internal ICE memo directing officers to place the devices on anyone enrolled in the ATD program.
The number of people in the ATD program with ankle monitors nearly doubled in subsequent months, even as overall enrollment in the program remained stable. The total grew from about 24,000 at the time of the memo, a figure reported by the Washington Post, to roughly 42,000 last month, according to a February fiscal year 2026 ICE report.
The increase has not been evenly distributed across the country. The February ICE report revealed that enforcement varies by region, with the DC area having the highest number of people required to wear ankle monitors in the country.
“If you’re in the area of the Washington DC field office, which covers Virginia and the city of Washington DC, then you’re drastically more likely to be subjected to ankle monitoring,” Benz said. “But it’s not really clear exactly what the reason is for regional variation.”
In an email to the Guardian, an ICE spokesperson said that the ATD program uses “individualized determinations” to tailor supervision levels on a case-by-case basis, allowing ICE to escalate or de-escalate oversight as needed. The spokesperson added that decisions are based on criminal history, compliance record and “any other relevant factors” when determining whether to keep someone in detention during ongoing proceedings.
Bijpuria said uneven enforcement highlights the “arbitrary” nature of ankle monitor assignments, recalling many clients who were fitted with the devices despite having complied with their legal obligations. The cases, she said, raise questions about whether ensuring compliance is truly the goal behind the monitoring.
These concerns are reinforced by a 2021 study conducted by the Cardozo School of Law, which found that ankle monitors do not necessarily improve compliance and may even be counterproductive. The report found that 98% of immigrants released without electronic ankle monitors attended all court hearings and ICE check-ins, compared with 93% of those required to wear the devices.
Legal experts say uncertainty about the motives behind ankle monitor orders is exacerbated by limited transparency from federal authorities. ICE’s internal memo was never released publicly, prompting the Amica Center to file a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.
Benz said ICE initially responded to the lawsuit by saying it would publish the memo on its website. The agency later said it could not do so at the moment because of the ongoing Department of Homeland Security (DHS) shutdown.
“We’ve seen that ICE is not an agency that cares very much about transparency in its dealings with immigrants, or really the public at large,” Benz said.
Julia Decker, policy director at the Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota, said the lack of transparency reflects a strategy of “intentional chaos”, in which creating uncertainty and anxiety in immigrant communities is “part of the plan”.
Decker raised concerns that the use of ankle monitors and the broader ATD program could become another way to “force” immigrants into a mistake that would push them into detention.
“I think that it’s very, very likely that any program like this becomes a way to funnel you right back into the very system that it was supposed to be an alternative to,” she said. “Particularly with an administration like this one that has been very public with its statements about wanting to arrest and deport as many [people as possible].”
Benz echoed Decker’s concerns, calling the ATD program an “alternative form of detention” rather than a true alternative to detention.
“We’ve seen a number of cases where ICE has used the ankle monitor to track down someone at home,” he said. “Sometimes there has been a ruse of ‘Hey, can you come outside? We got an alert. There’s something wrong with your ankle monitor, and we just need to check it out.’ And then that person is actually detained by ICE.”
Beyond increasing the risk of detention, ankle monitors impose psychological, economic and physical harms on the people required to wear them, experts said.
“There are very onerous conditions of supervision, like curfews, home inspections and restrictions on where you can travel,” Benz said. “All of these combined can take a great toll on an individual on a psychological level. They don’t feel free. They feel as if they’re being watched, and they are also having their liberty, their freedom of movement, actually physically restrained.”
He noted that people wearing ankle monitors are more likely to lose their jobs, as the devices are often associated with the criminal legal system and can make those who wear them appear suspicious to employers.
Bijpuria emphasized the physical discomfort of ankle monitors. “Besides the psychological trauma, shame and disruption, it’s difficult to sleep.”
She added that the combination of deportation threats and the various harms of ankle monitors appears designed to pressure people into self-deportation. Last year, the then DHS secretary, Kristi Noem, announced a nationwide, multimillion-dollar campaign that offered incentives for self-deportation, including up to $1,000 in financial assistance and free travel.
“We’ve seen people who’ve been detained or put on ankle monitoring who have options but, because of the conditions that they’re subjected to, ultimately decide to self-deport,” Bijpuria said. “You also have to remember there are private companies involved, and there is someone who’s making money from all this. They don’t have enough capacity for detaining everyone, so this is an alternative still getting you in that pipeline to ultimate removal.”
Amid the shifting landscape of immigration policies, a continuing DHS shutdown and leadership changes, Benz stressed the importance of submitting a written request to ICE for removal or avoidance of the device, supported by medical documentation demonstrating its negative impacts. Benz pointed to guides for attorneys representing clients in the ATD program and people navigating the process without legal representation.
“I think that [ankle monitoring and the ATD program] have flown under the radar in part because there are so many awful things that this agency is doing every day in terms of ripping people away from their families and their communities,” Benz said. “But the use of ankle monitors by ICE is a very harmful phenomenon.”
