In Utah's immigration courts, more people are walking out with GPS hardware on their ankles instead of simply checking in by phone, according to local attorneys and volunteers. They say Immigration and Customs Enforcement is increasingly ordering 24/7 ankle monitors as a condition of release under the federal Alternatives to Detention program. Clients report skin irritation and rashes, the daily hassle of keeping the devices charged, and the social stigma of a visible tracker, while lawyers say there is almost no formal way to challenge the decision once ICE imposes one.
What attorneys are seeing in Utah courts
As reported by The Salt Lake Tribune, Utah immigration lawyers say ankle-monitor requirements that used to be rare have become noticeably more common in recent months. Attorney Adam Crayk told the paper that ICE officers are increasingly switching clients from app-based check-ins to bracelet-style GPS monitoring, and that in practice "ICE gets 100% discretion" over how and when the devices are used. A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson told the Tribune there has been no official policy change directing officers to put monitors on more people.
Federal memo and a funding bump
The pattern in Utah echoes national reporting that a June memo urged ICE staff to put ankle monitors on Alternatives to Detention participants "whenever possible," a shift first detailed by The Washington Post. That reporting noted that before the memo, only a fraction of people in the ATD program wore ankle bracelets and that private contractors had been preparing to expand their use.
Advocates and attorneys link that expansion to a significant increase in enforcement funding. Public radio reporting has highlighted ICE's recent budget growth, which some lawyers say helps explain the shift toward more intensive surveillance, according to NPR.
Device problems and the human toll
National investigations have documented that the ankle bands can bruise, overheat, and malfunction, and that case managers sometimes treat technical glitches as possible tampering. That leaves people fearful that a dead battery or faulty GPS signal could send them back into detention, according to The Guardian.
Advocates say the monitors are not just uncomfortable, they are conspicuous. The devices can mark wearers as criminals in public spaces and complicate everything from holding a job to caring for children. Volunteers and lawyers say that language barriers and confusing instructions can make it easier to miss a check-in or charge, which in turn can escalate a case. Those problems, they argue, pile on to the stress of already long immigration court backlogs.
Attorneys say there is little recourse
Local attorneys told The Salt Lake Tribune that they see no clear procedural path to appeal ICE's choice to impose a monitor. Clients are typically left to accept the ankle bracelet or risk being taken into custody instead.
The Tribune reported that volunteers who accompany immigrants to the Murray ISAP office have heard officials tell some people they must wear the GPS device for years. One volunteer said a client was told she would have to keep the monitor on until 2029. "It’s a true violation of a person’s physical dignity," attorney Kendall Moriarty told the paper.
Broader system context
Some experts question whether more surveillance is the tool the system actually needs. A 2015 analysis by the American Immigration Council found high court appearance rates among asylum seekers enrolled in alternatives to detention. At the same time, a December report from the Government Accountability Office concluded that the immigration court system does not systematically track whether respondents show up for hearings, which makes it hard to measure what effect electronic monitoring has on compliance (GAO).
Critics say those data gaps undercut confident claims that GPS ankle surveillance is the most effective way to keep people engaged with the court process. For now, Utah attorneys and volunteers say they plan to keep raising concerns about what they see in local courtrooms and at monitoring offices, while advocates push for clearer rules and stronger oversight. Officials at DHS and ICE maintain that supervision decisions are made case by case under the existing Alternatives to Detention authority.
