Why It Matters
A dramatic rise in voluntary departure agreements from U.S. immigration courts is drawing legal scrutiny and triggering court challenges, with critics arguing that harsh detention conditions and a no-bond policy are pushing immigrants — including some with legal standing to remain — into giving up their right to contest removal.
What Happened
The number of voluntary departure agreements reached nearly 90,000 cases as of May 1 of this year, more than seven times the total recorded during the final 16 months of the Biden administration, according to an analysis of immigration court data compiled by an academic research initiative called the Deportation Data Project.
Voluntary departure is a formal court agreement in which an immigrant agrees to leave the country at their own expense and within a set deadline, facing financial penalties for any delay. While it spares immigrants from an official removal order — which can permanently bar future legal return — advocacy groups say many are signing these agreements without fully understanding the consequences or consulting an attorney.
A central driver of the increase appears to be the Trump administration’s policy of mandatory detention without bond for immigrants who entered the country illegally. Three federal appeals courts have placed that policy on hold, while two have allowed it to stand, leaving its constitutionality unresolved — a conflict that legal observers expect will ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Laken Riley Act, signed into law in early 2025, extended mandatory detention further, applying it to immigrants arrested on suspicion of crimes as minor as shoplifting, even when charges are later dropped.
Detention Conditions Under Fire
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has been rapidly expanding detention capacity, but human rights organizations have described facilities as crowded and frequently unsanitary. ICE reported that 51 people have died in immigration detention facilities since President Trump’s inauguration in January 2025. The Department of Homeland Security has set a target of reaching one million deportations annually.
A federal judge in Oregon earlier this year accused immigration authorities of leveraging the threat of prolonged detention to pressure immigrants into signing departure agreements, writing in a February opinion that the tactic came “at the cost of debasing the rule of law.”
An American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit filed in Illinois in October 2025 accused immigration officials of coercing detainees at the Broadview detention center near Chicago into signing voluntary departure agreements while held in overcrowded, unsanitary conditions. A federal restraining order — still in effect during ongoing settlement negotiations — required the facility to maintain sanitary housing, provide attorney access, and ensure detainees had adequate time and language assistance to understand legal documents.
By the Numbers
- 89,494 voluntary departure agreements recorded as of May 1, 2026
- 11,977 voluntary departures recorded during the final 16 months of the Biden administration
- 7x increase in voluntary departures under the second Trump administration
- 51 deaths in ICE detention facilities since January 20, 2025
- $2,600 cash incentive offered separately through a government app for self-deportation — not counted in voluntary departure figures
Legal and Human Stakes
Court records illustrate individual cases at the center of the controversy. One man identified in litigation as Victor C.G. said he was pressured to sign departure papers during a three-week detention after being arrested walking home from work. He refused, an attorney intervened, and he was released on bond. He has lived in the United States for 26 years and held legal work authorization tied to a pending visa for victims who cooperate with criminal investigations.
“We see people choosing voluntary departure not because they lack a right to stay, but because they cannot endure the conditions in detention any longer,” said Shayna Kessler of the Vera Institute of Justice, which advocates for expanded legal representation in immigration proceedings.
Colleen Putzel-Kavanaugh of the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute acknowledged that in locations where bond is unavailable, departure may appear to be the most practical option — but noted that without legal counsel, immigrants may be surrendering rights they don’t realize they have.
What’s Next
The mandatory detention policy’s constitutionality is expected to be taken up by the Supreme Court, given the split among federal appeals courts. Settlement negotiations in the Illinois detention case continue under the existing restraining order. As the administration pushes toward its deportation targets, the economic and community effects of immigration enforcement are increasingly shaping political debates in states including Ohio, where affordability and workforce concerns intersect with federal immigration policy.