What Happened
A new, soft‑sided Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) camp on Army land near El Paso—“Camp East Montana” at Fort Bliss—began operating this month with about 1,000 detainees and space to scale to roughly 5,000, which would make it the largest civil immigration lockup in the country (El Paso Matters, Aug. 18, 2025; KVIA, Aug. 17, 2025; Dallas Morning News, Aug. 11, 2025). The project follows a July plan to spend about $1.26 billion to stand up a mega‑facility on the base (Texas Tribune, July 23, 2025).
Nationwide detention has climbed to 59,380 people as of August 10, 2025, and 70.4% of those in ICE custody have no criminal convictions, per TRAC’s latest facility‑level counts (TRAC, “Immigration Detention Quick Facts,” Aug. 2025). Texas and Louisiana account for the largest shares.
In Louisiana—nicknamed “detention alley”—immigration judges are increasingly presiding by video from out‑of‑state courtrooms, a practice that can scramble cases and complicate access to counsel (Washington Post, Aug. 23, 2025, paywall). EOIR also rescinded an earlier directive that urged accommodating respondents’ preference for in‑person appearances, signaling a wider turn toward mandatory video teleconferencing (VTC) (Immigration Policy Tracking, Mar. 14, 2025).
Why It’s Controversial
Fort Bliss sits on military land and has a fraught detention history; rights groups warn the new camp risks militarizing civil detention and hiding abuses from public view (ACLU, Aug. 2025). Local reporting shows brisk expansion despite protests and questions about oversight and contractor experience (KFOX14/CBS4, Aug. 11–12, 2025; El País (English), Aug. 22, 2025).
Meanwhile, ICE has intensified arrests at routine supervision check‑ins and even at courthouse appearances, prompting litigation and emergency injunctions in New York and elsewhere (THE CITY, June 3, 2025; ACLU Press, Aug. 12, 2025).
The Legal View
Textualist (Scalia) lens. The removal‑to‑country rules live in INA §241(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. §1231(b)(2). In Jama v. ICE, the Court read the statute to permit removal to a country without advance consent, if that country fits one of the fallback clauses (2005). That reading strengthens executive latitude on where to send someone, so long as the text’s sequence is followed (Cornell LII, Jan. 12, 2005). At the same time, detention after a final order is constrained by Zadvydas v. Davis, which interpreted §1231 to forbid indefinite civil detention when removal isn’t reasonably foreseeable (2001) (U.S. Supreme Court, June 28, 2001).
Civil‑rights (Marshall) lens. Even if a third‑country is textually allowed, the United States must honor the Convention Against Torture’s ban on refoulement (no transfer to torture) and the regulations at 8 C.F.R. §§1208.16–.18, which require an individualized process to assess risk before removal. CAT Article 3 is categorical: no sending someone to face torture (OHCHR, CAT Article 3; eCFR, §1208.16; Cornell LII, §1208.18).
Liberty/overreach (Douglas) lens. Immigration detention is civil, not punitive, so conditions and duration matter. The Court in Bell v. Wolfish warned that civil confinement can’t morph into punishment (1979). Demore v. Kim allowed brief mandatory detention for certain crimes (2003), but Jennings v. Rodriguez left open constitutional challenges to prolonged detention without hearings (2018). Read together with Zadvydas, the arc favors meaningful process and limits on civil lockup (Justia, 1979; Justia, 2003; Oyez, 2018).
Conditions Inside
A June DHS OIG inspection of ICE’s owned facility in Batavia, NY, found multiple compliance problems: an inappropriate use of force; failures to log and answer grievances on time; inadequate outdoor recreation equipment for people in segregation; comingling of different custody levels; and medical staffing vacancies, including no on‑site full‑time dentist or physician (DHS OIG, June 3, 2025). These are classic due‑process and dignity red flags under the UN’s Mandela Rules and UNHCR’s Detention Guidelines (UNODC, 2015; UNHCR, 2012).
ICE’s newly posted National Detention Standards (2025) again promise humane care, language access, and medical services—but standards on paper often diverge from practice when facilities are remote, oversight is thin, or staffing is short (ICE NDS 2025; ICE Detention Management, updated Aug. 14, 2025).
Beyond U.S. Borders
After a district court temporarily required notice and a chance to raise CAT claims before third‑country removals, the Supreme Court stayed that injunction on June 23, allowing DHS to proceed while litigation continues (SCOTUS order, June 23, 2025). Internal guidance has circulated emphasizing “diplomatic assurances” and, in some scenarios, removal with minimal notice; rights groups argue that blanket assurances cannot replace individualized risk screening (Immigration Policy Tracking, July 9, 2025; NILA Practice Alert, June 27, 2025).
Human Rights Watch documented February flights in which the U.S. expelled third‑country nationals—among them Afghans, Eritreans, Russians, and Iranians—to Panama without a chance to seek asylum in the U.S., raising chain‑refoulement concerns (HRW, Apr. 24, 2025). For Iranian nationals in particular, the new removal posture has immediate stakes: press accounts detail cases where people long protected from return to Iran now face transfers to countries where they have no ties (Washington Post, Aug. 3, 2025, paywall; ABC News (Australia), Aug. 6–7, 2025).
In the Courts
The Supreme Court’s stay in DHS v. D.V.D. turned the policy lights green for third‑country removals pending appeal, but plaintiffs argue CAT regulations and FARRA still require notice and a meaningful opportunity to raise fear claims before any such transfer (Opposition to Stay, June 2025). Separately, a federal court in New York issued a TRO curbing how ICE detains people at 26 Federal Plaza, citing overcrowded holding conditions during check‑ins (ACLU Press, Aug. 12, 2025).
Why It Matters
The United States now holds nearly sixty thousand people in civil detention on any given day, most without criminal convictions, often far from counsel and family. When hearings are off‑screen, transfers are sudden, and facilities are fenced off on military land, due process isn’t just harder; it’s structurally undermined. That matters for the people in custody—and for everyone else—because civil liberties that can be switched off in the name of efficiency don’t stay neatly contained to one system (TRAC, Aug. 2025; Washington Post, Aug. 23, 2025, paywall).
Looking Ahead
Watch four dials. First, Fort Bliss headcounts and medical staffing—do conditions track with the new standards? Second, VTC policy at EOIR—are judges still honoring requests for in‑person merits hearings? Third, third‑country removal practices—are people getting written notice and individualized CAT screenings before any transfer? Fourth, arrests at check‑ins—are courts forcing ICE to limit holding conditions and abandon dragnet tactics? ICE’s own public dashboards and policy pages are updating this summer (ICE Detention Management, updated Aug. 14, 2025), and TRAC continues to publish weekly detention counts and facility data (TRAC, Aug. 2025).
Bottom line: detention policy is racing ahead—bigger, faster, and more remote. The legal guardrails exist in the Constitution, the INA, the CAT regulations, and international standards. The open question is whether institutions will enforce those guardrails before today’s exceptions become tomorrow’s rule.
Disclaimer: For informational purposes only; not legal advice.
Authorities & References (selected): INA §241(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. §1231(b)(2) (Cornell LII); 8 C.F.R. §§241.3, 241.4, 241.5, 241.13 (eCFR); 8 C.F.R. §§1208.16–.18 (eCFR); Jama v. ICE (2005); Zadvydas v. Davis (2001); Demore v. Kim (2003); Jennings v. Rodriguez (2018); Bell v. Wolfish (1979); Flores Settlement (1997); ICCPR; CAT art. 3; UNHCR Detention Guidelines; Nelson Mandela Rules.
Suggested Categories: Immigration Detention, Third‑Country Removals, Due Process, Texas, Louisiana, Iranian Nationals, Video Hearings, OIG/Oversight
Suggested Tags: Fort Bliss, Camp East Montana, ICE, EOIR, CAT, TRAC, check‑in arrests, diplomatic assurances, detention standards, remote hearings
Discover more from CandidViews
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.