Congress Moves to Restrict ICE's Use of Warehouse-Style Detention Facilities

Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (MI-12) has introduced the Ban Warehouse Detention Act, legislation that would prevent the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement from building, operating, expanding, or renovating warehouse buildings used for immigration detention. The bill targets a specific type of facility — converted warehouse and industrial buildings — that civil rights advocates and immigration attorneys argue creates problematic detention conditions.

The legislation would block DHS and ICE from using warehouse-style structures for detention purposes. Tlaib's office refers to these facilities as "warehouse detention prisons," centering the debate around the physical infrastructure itself rather than detention policies more broadly.

The Legislative Background

Tlaib's focus on detention facility types connects to documented concerns about immigration enforcement practices. In January 2020, during congressional debate over the NO BAN Act, Tlaib pointed to cases where CBP detained U.S. citizens for up to nine hours, according to Congressional Record entries from January 29, 2020. This bill approaches a related problem — enforcement infrastructure — from a different angle.

Rather than setting limits on how long someone can be detained or establishing new due process protections, this legislation focuses narrowly on the buildings themselves. It's a constraint on the physical infrastructure rather than on detention duration or enforcement practices.

How the Ban Would Actually Work

Worth flagging: The bill's enforcement poses a practical puzzle. It would require DHS to assess its existing facility portfolio and determine which structures count as "warehouses," but the legislation does not appear to define specific architectural criteria that would make this classification clear. This could create disputes over which facilities actually fall under the ban.

Currently, ICE operates detention facilities through a mix of government-owned centers, privately-run facilities, and agreements with local jails and county detention systems. The warehouse ban would affect how the department plans new facilities and maintains existing ones.

For facilities already in use, the prohibition on expanding or renovating warehouse-style buildings could limit ICE's ability to add capacity or make necessary repairs at those locations. The department would need to identify which current facilities are "warehouses" and develop alternative approaches for improvements.

Why Target Buildings Instead of Policies.

Analysis: This bill takes an unusual approach to immigration enforcement reform. Instead of addressing detention duration, legal representation, or who gets detained, it targets the building type — a kind of indirect restriction on operations. We have seen similar strategies before in other policy areas, where advocates constrain government operations through rules about facilities or procurement rather than directly changing the underlying activity.

This architectural approach differs from comprehensive immigration reform proposals, which typically tackle detention duration, due process, or enforcement priorities head-on. This bill attempts to influence outcomes by limiting where and how detention can happen physically.

Where This Fits in Broader Reform Efforts

The Ban Warehouse Detention Act arrives as Congress debates immigration enforcement more broadly. Tlaib has been active in these discussions before, including her support for the NO BAN Act, which addressed travel restrictions and enforcement practices.

This bill represents a narrow intervention — focused on one operational aspect of the detention system rather than tackling multiple enforcement issues at once. By constraining facility architecture rather than detention practices directly, it attempts to shift enforcement outcomes through infrastructure rules.

In this author's view, the focus on building types rather than detention policies may reflect a pragmatic recognition that comprehensive immigration reform has struggled to advance in Congress. More targeted interventions on specific operational aspects have sometimes faced less resistance than sweeping reform.

The bill now enters the committee process. Whether it advances will depend on political appetite in Congress for infrastructure-focused restrictions on federal agency operations, and broader political dynamics around immigration enforcement.