ICE Put an Ankle Monitor on You. Here Are the Rules, and How to Ask for It Off.

You walked into a check-in and walked out with a device on your ankle. Or someone you love did. Here are three threshold questions, answered before anything else.

Does it cost you anything? ICE states that participants do not pay for any ISAP services or technology, and that all costs are paid by the government. If a company is billing you monthly for a device, that is a separate arrangement, and the section below explains it.

Is there a way to ask for it to come off? Yes. ICE's own privacy assessment describes a written request for reconsideration of the monitoring requirements, and sets out what such a request must contain.

How long do people stay in Alternatives to Detention? ICE's most recent published file located as of September 6, 2026 reports an average length of stay in the program of 788.48 days as of July 11, 2026. That is the program-wide average, not a figure specific to ankle monitors.

What ISAP actually is

ISAP stands for the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program. It is a component of what ICE calls Alternatives to Detention, and it is run under contract by BI Incorporated, a wholly owned subsidiary of The GEO Group. GEO's annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission discloses that BI won a new two-year ISAP contract in 2025 after a competitive procurement, and that the program accounted for nine percent of the company's consolidated revenues in 2025.

ICE's own program description, on a page ICE now marks as archived, listed three supervision technologies: telephonic reporting using a voiceprint recorded at enrollment, SmartLINK, a smartphone application with photo check-ins, and body-worn GPS, meaning the ankle device or in some cases a wrist-worn unit that adds facial matching and messaging.

According to ICE's privacy impact assessment, the ankle unit continuously tracks and logs location points, case managers can view location in real time, and officers can set inclusion zones that alert when someone leaves an assigned area and exclusion zones that alert when someone enters one. The same document notes that people are told tampering with or damaging the unit may result in arrest, detention, and prosecution.

At enrollment, participants sign several documents, including a program rules agreement that ICE describes as establishing the program rules and participant rights. That agreement, together with the conditions written on an order of supervision, is where the rules a person is actually held to are found.

The fee question

ICE's position is stated plainly on its Alternatives to Detention FAQ: participants do not pay for any ISAP services or technology, and all costs are paid by the government.

That is different from what some people are billed. When a person cannot pay an immigration bond, private companies offer to post it. Some of those companies attach their own GPS device and charge a monthly fee for it. In April 2024, the New York Attorney General, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and a coalition of states obtained an $811 million judgment against Libre by Nexus and Nexus Services, comprising $231 million in restitution and $580 million in penalties. The judgment addressed a range of conduct, including charges associated with the company's monitoring arrangement, and allegations that the company threatened people with re-arrest by an "Agency" that consumers would likely understand to mean ICE, when the company had no such relationship with ICE.

Three different things get confused with one another, and separating them matters. ICE says it does not charge participants for ISAP technology. An immigration bond is money posted with the government, which as of September 2026 carries a statutory minimum of $1,500 under 8 U.S.C. section 1226(a)(2), and an order of supervision may carry its own bond under 8 C.F.R. section 241.5(b). A private bond company's monthly charge is neither of those.

What ICE's data shows

Comparing ICE's published detention statistics as of September 20, 2025 against the file as of July 11, 2026, ankle monitors rose from 30,249 to 53,192, an increase of about 75.8 percent. Over the same period SmartLINK enrollment fell from 147,461 to 127,296, a decrease of about 13.7 percent. Total enrollment in Alternatives to Detention rose from 181,210 to 183,181, an increase of about 1.1 percent.

Those aggregate movements are consistent with substantial substitution from the phone application toward worn monitors. Total enrollment grew only slightly while the share on a worn device grew sharply.

Two further figures. The same file reports an average length of stay in the program of 788.48 days as of July 11, 2026, roughly sixty-three days longer than a year earlier. And in ICE's New York area of responsibility, ankle monitor counts fell from 1,896 to 1,565 between those two dates, a decrease of about 17.5 percent, moving in the opposite direction from the national count.

These are point-in-time figures from a file ICE last posted in July 2026, the most recent located as of September 6, 2026, not live counts.

No law names the ankle monitor

Reviewing the statutes and regulations that govern immigration release conditions turns up no provision that expressly authorizes electronic monitoring, GPS tracking, or ankle devices. The authority is general.

For people under an order of supervision after the removal period, 8 U.S.C. section 1231(a)(3) requires, in plain terms, obeying reasonable written restrictions on conduct or activities that the Attorney General prescribes. For people released before a final order, 8 U.S.C. section 1226(a)(2) allows release on bond with conditions prescribed by the Attorney General, or on conditional parole. The regulation governing orders of supervision, 8 C.F.R. section 241.5(a), lists five conditions and introduces them with the words "including, but not limited to."

That phrase is doing a great deal of work. The device is not named in the provisions that authorize the conditions it enforces.

Asking for the monitor to come off

The written request. ICE's privacy impact assessment states that participants may submit a written request for reconsideration of the reporting or monitoring requirements, and that requests must include justification for why reconsideration is appropriate along with relevant documentation, if any, to support the request. That is the mechanism, described in the agency's own document.

Who decides, and on what. ICE says supervision levels and technology are set by Alternatives to Detention deportation officers, based on criteria that include immigration status, criminal history, public safety concerns, compliance history, community or family ties, whether the person is a caregiver or provider, medical conditions, and other humanitarian factors. Those are the factors ICE says its officers consider.

Where to send it. ICE's answer is that questions or concerns about a condition of release can be directed to the local officer managing the case. ICE also says it recommends compliance reviews every thirty days, after which an officer confirms whether the person has the most appropriate form of supervision, and describes supervision as adjustable in both directions based on compliance.

A separate procedure, before a final order, with a seven-day limit. This one is distinct from the ICE written request. Under 8 C.F.R. section 236.1(d), a respondent may apply to an immigration judge for amelioration of the conditions of release, but within the scope of that provision, an application to ameliorate the terms of release must be filed within seven days of release from custody. After that period, the regulation directs review to the district director, with a ten-day appeal from that decision. Seven days is a short window.

ICE's Alternatives to Detention FAQ states, without giving a reporting period or as-of date, that approximately ninety percent of participants were terminated from ISAP and moved to non-detained status through administrative closure, program de-escalation, or prosecutorial discretion, adding that some may have had their cases concluded but the majority were still in removal proceedings. That is an undated agency statement about a population. It does not indicate what will happen in any particular case.

Pregnancy, illness, and disability

ICE issued Directive 11032.4, effective July 1, 2021, providing that people known to be pregnant, postpartum, or nursing will not be placed on a form of Alternatives to Detention requiring a radio frequency or GPS monitor to be worn. We have not been able to confirm whether that directive remains operative today, so treat it as the agency's stated policy as issued and verify its current status before relying on it.

Read it alongside its own Section 9, which states that the directive provides only internal policy guidance, may be modified or rescinded at any time without notice, and may not be relied upon to create any right or benefit enforceable at law by any party. It is worth citing in a written request because it states the agency's own policy, while understanding it is not something a court enforces.

On disability, the applicable statute is Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. section 794(a), which reaches programs conducted by federal executive agencies, together with DHS's implementing regulation at 6 C.F.R. section 15.30. The Americans with Disabilities Act is a different statute whose public entity provisions reach state and local government rather than federal agencies. Getting that citation right matters when you are putting something in writing.

If something goes wrong

ICE's privacy assessment lists what a case manager may consider when someone does not comply: issuing a documented written warning, changing how often the person reports, changing the monitoring technology assigned, or modifying the conditions of release.

Two details are worth holding onto. The contractor cannot take enforcement action on its own, and must refer cases to ICE personnel for assessment. And a failed photo check-in is not automatically held against anyone, because ICE states that automated matching results are reviewed by staff or an officer before any action is taken, and that a check-in passes with no negative consequence if manual review confirms the same person.

There is also criminal exposure. ICE's assessment notes referral for prosecution under 8 U.S.C. section 1253 for willful failure to comply with the terms of release under supervision, which carries a fine, imprisonment of up to one year, or both.

A pending case

In June 2026, five mothers enrolled in Alternatives to Detention filed a putative class action in the federal district court in Washington, D.C., challenging what their complaint calls the Helland Memorandum. As recounted in the court's July 2026 opinion, the plaintiffs allege the memorandum instructed officers to escalate supervision to GPS ankle monitors whenever possible and to increase reporting requirements regardless of case type.

What that case is at this stage matters. As of a docket check on September 6, 2026, the only opinion on the public docket decides whether the plaintiffs may proceed under pseudonyms. It is not a ruling on the merits, it granted no relief regarding monitors, and the description of the memorandum comes from the plaintiffs' allegations rather than from findings of fact. We note it because it is the live litigation in this area, not because anyone can say how it will come out.

Frequently asked questions

Do I have to pay for my ICE ankle monitor?

ICE states that participants do not pay for any ISAP services or technology and that all costs are paid by the government. If a company bills you every month for a device, that is a private arrangement. Keep three things separate: ICE's position that it does not charge for ISAP technology; an immigration bond, which is money posted with the government and which as of September 2026 carries a statutory minimum of $1,500 under 8 U.S.C. section 1226(a)(2); and a private bond company's monthly charge, which is neither.

How do I ask to have my ankle monitor removed?

ICE's privacy impact assessment states that participants may submit a written request for reconsideration of the reporting or monitoring requirements, including justification and any relevant supporting documentation. ICE says questions about a condition of release can be directed to the local officer managing the case. Separately, and only before a final order, 8 C.F.R. section 236.1(d) provides a procedure for applying to an immigration judge to ameliorate the conditions of release, with an application required within seven days of release from custody, after which review goes to the district director with a ten-day appeal.

What is ISAP in immigration?

ISAP is the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program, a component of what ICE calls Alternatives to Detention, operated under contract by BI Incorporated, a wholly owned subsidiary of The GEO Group. ICE's program description, on a page ICE now marks as archived, listed three supervision technologies: telephonic reporting with a voiceprint, the SmartLINK phone application, and body-worn GPS, meaning an ankle device or in some cases a wrist unit.

What are the rules for an immigration ankle monitor?

No statute or regulation reviewed here expressly authorizes ankle monitors. The authority is general: 8 U.S.C. section 1231(a)(3) requires obeying reasonable written restrictions on conduct or activities prescribed by the Attorney General, 8 U.S.C. section 1226(a)(2) permits release on bond with conditions or on conditional parole, and 8 C.F.R. section 241.5(a) lists conditions of supervision introduced by the phrase including, but not limited to. The rules a person is held to in practice appear in the program rules agreement signed at enrollment and in the conditions written on the order of supervision.

Can ICE put an ankle monitor on someone who is pregnant?

ICE Directive 11032.4, effective July 1, 2021, provides that people known to be pregnant, postpartum, or nursing will not be placed on a form of Alternatives to Detention requiring a radio frequency or GPS monitor to be worn. Section 9 of the same directive states that it creates no right or benefit enforceable at law. Its current operative status should be confirmed before relying on it. For disability accommodations the governing law is Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, not the Americans with Disabilities Act.

What happens if I miss an ISAP check-in?

ICE lists what a case manager may consider: a documented written warning, a change in reporting frequency, a change in monitoring technology, or modified conditions of release. The contractor cannot take enforcement action on its own and must refer cases to ICE. A failed photo check-in is not automatically counted against you, because ICE states results are reviewed by staff or an officer first. Willful failure to comply with supervision terms can be referred for prosecution under 8 U.S.C. section 1253.

How long do people stay in Alternatives to Detention?

ICE's detention statistics file reports an average length of stay in Alternatives to Detention of 788.48 days as of July 11, 2026, roughly sixty-three days longer than the year before. ICE's Alternatives to Detention FAQ also states, without giving a reporting period, that approximately ninety percent of participants were terminated from the program and moved to non-detained status, adding that some may have had their cases concluded but the majority were still in removal proceedings. That is an undated agency statement about a population and does not indicate what will happen in an individual case.

If you are wearing one

Start by establishing which posture the case is in, because it determines which procedures are available. Section 236.1(d) provides a route to an immigration judge before a final order, within its terms and its seven-day limit. For someone already under a final order and an order of supervision, ICE's written reconsideration request is the mechanism its own documents describe, directed to the officer managing the case.

Then build the request around the criteria ICE says it uses. Compliance history, medical documentation, caregiving or provider responsibilities, and community or family ties are the agency's own listed factors, and a written request that documents them is addressing what the decision-maker says it considers.

Our practice includes deportation defense, federal court litigation in the circuit and district courts, and habeas corpus petitions. We cannot tell you a monitor will come off. That decision is assigned to an officer and is discretionary.

If you or someone in your family is on ISAP and does not understand the rules being applied, call us at (212) 219-3244. The consultation is free, and we work in English, Spanish, French, Haitian Creole, and Mandarin.