The Advocates for Human Rights and L.H.M. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al.

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

the hold increased detainee time at Whipple; indeed, overcrowding has decreased since the TRO. (Ex. 346 (sealed); ECF No. 143 (“Simard Decl.”) ¶¶ 12–13, 15.) B. Locating Detainees Before the TRO, Defendants transferred people so quickly that even Defendants struggled to locate detainees. (Glenn Decl. ¶ 5 (“In two of my cases, for example, [the government] was unable to locate my clients for days after transporting them out of state.”).) Often, Defendants did not accurately or timely input information into the Online Detainee Locator System (“ODLS”). (Tr. at 223 (explaining that before the TRO, it took “hours, sometimes days after the initial detention” to update the ODLS).) The ODLS either produced no search results or instructed attorneys to call for details, referencing a Joint exhibit admitted on the record; not filed. CASE 0:26-cv-00749-NEB-DLM Doc. 178 Filed 03/26/26 Page 10 of 69 phone number that ICE did not answer. (Tr. 238 (“Every time I have called, it has just rang and rang and rang.”); Kelley Decl. ¶¶ 16, 18; Glenn Decl. ¶ 4 (“[E]very time I have tried to call ICE’s St. Paul Field Office I am met with a busy