{"id":19089,"date":"2026-07-23T11:51:06","date_gmt":"2026-07-23T15:51:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/?p=19089"},"modified":"2026-07-23T13:26:17","modified_gmt":"2026-07-23T17:26:17","slug":"federal_system","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/2026\/07\/23\/federal_system\/","title":{"rendered":"The federal system: A patchwork of agencies rapidly expanding federal surveillance and punishment"},"content":{"rendered":"

\nThe federal system of incarceration and detention makes up a relatively small, but rapidly expanding, share of confinement<\/a> in the United States. Between 1984 and 2026, the number of people confined by the federal government has exploded by 631%. And while that number is below its 2011 peak, federal incarceration and detention have grown by 12% in just the last two years.1<\/a><\/sup> \n<\/p>\n

\nThe Trump administration’s recent, belligerent use of policing and prosecutions have already left their mark on the federal system, especially with regard to mass detention and deportation. But even so, it’s not easy to understand the scope of this corner of the system and how its practices and priorities have shifted over time. Opaque federal police and prison agencies make it hard to see these changes, or to know which agency is responsible. And it’s harder still to know what federal policy reforms or state and local resistance would be most effective to rein in runaway expansion plans.\n<\/p>\n

\nIn this briefing, we try to overcome these issues by piecing together data from various sources to provide a clearer picture of the patchwork federal system, from ICE detention and electronic monitoring to federal prisons and pretrial supervision. We show trends in detention and incarceration,2<\/a><\/sup> and examine the role that the criminalization of immigration (including the exploitation of a loophole in sanctuary policies<\/a>) has played in shaping the system. Finally, we round out our analysis by spotlighting some of the glaring problems with federal pretrial detention and highlighting the fiscal costs of the system.\n<\/p>\n

\nWith a better grasp of the agencies involved and the mechanisms at play, people can work with their state and local governments to limit the reach of the federal system.\n<\/p>\n

The size and scope of federal systems of confinement and supervision<\/h2>\n
\"pie\n<\/picture> <\/div>\n

\nToday, 268,000 people are detained or incarcerated on federal authority, and 321,000 people face the threat of being locked up while under federal community supervision. Taken together, more than half a million people are under some kind of federal correctional control.3<\/a><\/sup> But they are spread across four major agencies or authorities, depending on the charges and the status of their cases. For example, after a federal arrest, people are locked up in one of three primary ways:\n<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Pretrial detention while a criminal case proceeds in federal court. They may be held without bail or, more often, unable to afford release on bail. <\/li>\n
  2. A sentence to incarceration. When someone takes a guilty plea or is convicted at (an exceedingly rare<\/a>) trial, a judge can sentence them to incarceration. <\/li>\n
  3. ICE detention: They are confined while a civil case proceeds in immigration court or while awaiting deportation.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    \nAdditionally, many who aren’t locked up are instead under community supervision by either the federal criminal court system or ICE. In this section, we briefly explain which agencies are involved at various stages of the legal process and how they share resources to detain, incarcerate, and monitor so many people.\n<\/p>\n

    \nPretrial detention. <\/b>While being prosecuted in a federal criminal court, people are booked into custody of the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS or “the Marshals”). The Marshals provide space for pretrial detention to the federal courts, primarily via contracts with a network of local jails.4<\/a><\/sup> While the Marshals’ role in criminalizing immigration is less visible, their detention network presents a loophole<\/a> that allows the use of local resources for immigration enforcement despite “sanctuary” policies. It’s important to understand that the Marshals often serve the same purposes as ICE and share the same resources. Almost half of all people who face federal criminal charges in the course of the year are there for some kind of “criminal” violation of immigration law, such as returning to the United States after an earlier deportation.5<\/a><\/sup> Meanwhile, ICE relies heavily on the Marshals’ network of local jails to detain people for civil immigration matters; only a small share of these individuals have criminal convictions.\n<\/p>\n

    \nIncarceration.<\/b> After sentencing in a federal criminal court, people with short terms of incarceration are sometimes left in U.S. Marshals custody instead of being transferred to a federal prison. Many people don’t know that 1 in 5 people serving a federal sentence of incarceration on any given day are in USMS custody. The Federal Bureau of Prisons handles everyone else with sentences to incarceration, using its detention centers, penitentiaries, correctional institutions, and prison camps.\n<\/p>\n

    \nImmigration detention<\/b>. In federal civil immigration cases, people are detained in ICE’s detention network. This network consists of detention centers operated by private prison companies, but also include some federal detention centers, state prisons, Bureau of Prisons facilities, and ICE offices. Importantly, ICE often has access to the USMS detention network of local jails as well, as intergovernmental service agreements commonly include both agencies.6<\/a><\/sup> ICE can also contract directly with local jails.\n<\/p>\n

    \nCommunity supervision: pretrial, probation, post-release, and for ICE.<\/b> Beyond federal detention and incarceration, 321,000 people face community supervision and surveillance by the federal government, both of which come with the inherent threat of confinement for any alleged violation. Community supervision for people accused or sentenced for federal crimes is overseen by the federal courts’ Probation and Pretrial Services. ICE surveils hundreds of thousands of people on an “alternatives to detention” electronic monitoring program.7<\/a><\/sup>\n<\/p>\n

    \nThis table breaks down how many people are involved in various parts of the system now:8<\/a><\/sup>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    Almost 600,000 people are caught up in the federal system of confinement and supervision, including nearly 250,000 in immigration detention or on electronic monitoring for ICE.9<\/a><\/sup> <\/caption>\n
    <\/th>\nPopulation<\/th>\nPercent of total<\/th>\nPercent of total
    confined or supervised<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
    <\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Total incarcerated or detained<\/td>\n265,433<\/td>\n45%<\/td>\n100%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    <\/td>\nPretrial or unsentenced status<\/td>\n24,492<\/td>\n4%<\/td>\n9%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    <\/td>\nSentenced<\/td>\n176,433<\/td>\n30%<\/td>\n66%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    <\/td>\n<\/td>\nHeld by U.S. Marshals<\/td>\n31,643<\/td>\n5%<\/td>\n12%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    <\/td>\n<\/td>\nHeld by Bureau of Prisons<\/td>\n144,790<\/td>\n25%<\/td>\n55%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    <\/td>\nImmigration detention: Held by ICE<\/td>\n64,508<\/td>\n11%<\/td>\n24%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    <\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Total under supervision<\/td>\n323,439<\/td>\n55%<\/td>\n100%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    <\/td>\nCriminal legal system community supervision<\/td>\n140,258<\/td>\n24%<\/td>\n44%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    <\/td>\n<\/td>\nPretrial supervision<\/td>\n22,314<\/td>\n4%<\/td>\n7%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    <\/td>\n<\/td>\nProbation<\/td>\n11,141<\/td>\n2%<\/td>\n3%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    <\/td>\n<\/td>\n Supervised release<\/td>\n106,803<\/td>\n18%<\/td>\n33%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    <\/td>\nICE Alternatives to Detention (electronic monitoring)<\/td>\n183,181<\/td>\n31%<\/td>\n57%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    <\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Total in federal confinement or community supervision<\/td>\n588,872<\/td>\n100%<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

    Immigrant criminalization and prosecution are driving federal confinement trends<\/h2>\n

    \nThe longer-run trends of federal detention and incarceration are similar to the overall expansion of mass incarceration through the 1980s and 1990s.10<\/a><\/sup> Since then, the federal system has continued to add huge numbers of people in immigration detention, especially during the Trump administrations. That increase in immigration detention, combined with the failure of the federal government to keep pace with broader declines in criminal punishment at the state and local levels over the past six years, has led to an overall spike in federal confinement.\n<\/p>\n

    \"line\n<\/picture>The number of people confined by federal agencies is more than six times greater in 2026 than it was in 1984, although it remains below its 2011 peak. Note that this chart does not include confinement by state or local criminal legal systems.<\/p>\n

    \nMoreover, Congress has already approved funding for ICE to expand detention capacity to 135,000<\/a>, almost double the current level. If used, this would drive federal confinement to all-time highs. Extreme levels of ICE arrests — like the 10,000 people arrested in the last 5 days of June 2026, and 2,000 on the weekdays that followed <\/a> — will assuredly lead to even more people held in ICE detention.\n<\/p>\n

    The role of immigration detention and criminalization<\/h3>\n

    \nIn addition to the well-documented expansion of ICE detention, federal prosecutors, the U.S. Marshals, and the Bureau of Prisons together have played an overlooked role in the expansion of confinement for immigration-related reasons, detaining and incarcerating people on criminal charges that had commonly been treated as civil matters in the past.11<\/a><\/sup>\n<\/p>\n

    \nFederal criminal prosecution allows immigration arrests and detention even in places with sanctuary policies.12<\/a><\/sup> That’s because of a longstanding loophole: ICE and other federal agencies can refer people for federal prosecution on immigration-related “crimes” and thus hold them in contracted local jails in sanctuary cities, counties, and states. In doing so, the Trump administration is transforming what are normally civil immigration matters into more serious federal crimes. This expands the overall federal incarceration system. As we have explained<\/a>, every county with a U.S. Marshals contract is effectively signed up for this part of the mass detention and deportation agenda, even if they have sanctuary policies<\/b> on their books.\n<\/p>\n

    \nWe estimate the federal Bureau of Prisons and U.S. Marshals detained or incarcerated roughly 25,000 people on an average day in fiscal year 2025 for immigration-related criminal charges, up 45% from around 17,300 people in 2024.13<\/a><\/sup> Federal prosecutors have been filing more cases against people for immigration-related offenses, sending people into the federal criminal legal system. Almost 50,000 people were charged and booked into U.S. Marshals custody for an immigration-related offense in fiscal year 2025 alone. The Trump administration plans to take this even further.\n<\/p>\n

    Expanded prosecutions and more detention <\/h3>\n

    \nThe Trump Administration projects that it will book 250,000 people into jail in fiscal year 2027.14<\/a><\/sup> There were fewer than 100,000 federal bookings in 2024.\n<\/p>\n

    \"line\n<\/picture> <\/p>\n

    \nThe most dramatic part of this projection is the expected booking of almost 110,000 people on immigration-related criminal charges, followed by sharp increases in the catch-all “other charges” group. Historically speaking, bookings in the “other” category primarily have been for supervision violations, followed by property offenses.15<\/a><\/sup>\n<\/p>\n

    \nNotably, the Trump administration also plans a rapid increase in the number of people booked on federal drug charges, indicating a return to<\/a> the failed policies<\/a> of the “war on drugs.” This will only compound problems within the federal pretrial system: people facing federal drug charges tend to be detained pretrial for longer than others (7.5 months before sentencing), in part because they often face protracted plea negotiations to avoid harsh mandatory-minimum charges.16<\/a><\/sup> Aggressively prosecuting drug-related crime will exacerbate the harmful impacts of pretrial detention<\/a> in the federal system.\n<\/p>\n

    \n

    Spotlight on overlooked problems with federal detention<\/h2>\n

    \nThe rapid growth of federal detention also comes at a steep financial cost. ICE spends about $222 a day to detain each person in custody — much more than it costs to incarcerate someone in a federal prison or within the U.S. Marshals detention network, to supervise them, or to release them.17<\/a><\/sup> Yet reports<\/a> abound<\/a> of abuse and cruelty<\/a>, inedible food<\/a>, and medical neglect<\/a> in ICE detention and in federal prisons<\/a>. These conditions can also lead to costly lawsuits, raising the question of why the Trump administration is choosing to spend public dollars this way.\n<\/p>\n

    \nGiven that, in the government’s own words, “defendants released in the federal system have a high degree of success<\/a>” in terms of court appearance and avoiding further charges, detention at its current scale is unnecessary and a clear example of government waste. A far better use of resources would be to release people on recognizance — at no financial cost — while they await their day in court. At a minimum, both immigration and criminal courts could opt for much less costly community supervision, at less than $2 a day for ICE “alternatives to detention” and $13 a day for pretrial supervision.18<\/a><\/sup> To be clear, these forms of supervision are also restrictive and controlling, often requiring electronic monitoring<\/a>, but when used in place of detention, they can keep people from some of its worst harms.\n<\/p>\n

    \"bar\n<\/picture>A version of this image focused solely on federal pretrial detention and supervision costs, and excluding ICE data, can be found here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    \nAnother major problem with the federal system is the lack of available, up-to-date information. The Bureau of Justice Statistics publishes annual data<\/a> about all state and federal prison populations, but these reports make no mention of the 32,000 people held by the U.S. Marshals who are serving federal sentences. Neither do those of the Federal Sentencing Commission.19<\/a><\/sup> Meanwhile, ICE has regularly failed to publish congressionally-mandated semi-monthly reports<\/a> summarizing statistics on detention over the past year, obscuring the public’s view of its rapid expansion.\n<\/p>\n

    \nThese data gaps can make it hard to hold system actors accountable. For instance, the government publishes only an occasional, limited view of the charges facing people who are detained pretrial and how long it takes before they are released.20<\/a><\/sup> Academic research shows that many judges grant prosecutors’ requests to detain defendants even when there is no legal basis and, legally, these defendants should be granted pretrial release on the “least restrictive means available.”21<\/a><\/sup> But while the federal courts used to<\/i> report the kind of information that would allow researchers to track this problem, even this limited information has been blocked in recent years.\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

    What federal, state, and local policymakers can do<\/h3>\n

    \nThe United States still incarcerates and detains its residents far more than peer nations<\/a> on a per capita basis, and changes at the federal level remain absolutely necessary — though not sufficient on their own — to end mass incarceration. Federal policymakers have direct control over criminal and immigration law, agency budgets, and appointment and confirmation of agency directors, federal prosecutors, and judges. Their influence can be seen in the outsized growth of the federal criminal legal and immigration detention system, especially in recent years, when immigration detention has spiked.\n<\/p>\n

    \nAt the top of any policy agenda must be addressing the injustice of ICE and civil immigration enforcement with their bloated budgets and lack of transparency and accountability. But the criminalization of immigration by the federal criminal courts, as well as the ongoing “war on drugs,” also demand action. Currently, federal judges and prosecutors use the vast detention network set up by the U.S. Marshals Service to lock people up in hundreds of different local jails and private prisons for the purposes of punishing what have not always been criminal offenses. Advocates and elected officials have fought back by ending law enforcement and jail collaborations with ICE. But policymakers need to go further and also block collaboration with other federal detention agencies like the U.S. Marshals. While federal policy action is essential to changing this system and reversing its buildup, states and local governments can take steps to limit it now.\n<\/p>\n

    <\/p>\n

    \n

    Footnotes<\/h2>\n
      \n
    1. \n

      The peak in 2011 was an annual average daily population of 293,500, with 33,330 of those people in ICE detention.  ↩<\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    2. \n

      There are substantive differences between detention and incarceration, even if people with different statuses are held in the exact same federal prison buildings. People who have been detained are either involved in the civil immigration system (i.e., in ICE detention) or being prosecuted but not yet sentenced for a federal criminal charge. People who are incarcerated have been convicted of a crime and sentenced by a judge.  ↩<\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    3. \n

      Millions more are threatened with deportation: not currently detained nor in an “alternative to detention” program, but still facing surveillance and roving federal agents and local deputies in their communities and workplaces. As of May 2026, 3.2 million people have open cases in the immigration court backlog<\/a>, some of whom will get their cases closed or have a deportation or removal order issued.  ↩<\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    4. \n

      In about half of states, the U.S. Marshals Service use only county jails to detain people<\/a>, often rural jails far from federal courthouses. In federal court districts serving large cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami, or New York City, there are facilities operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) that provide pretrial detention space. Even though these people are in BOP facilities, the U.S. Marshals remain responsible for those people. In other areas, especially on the U.S.-Mexico border, the U.S. Marshals use private prisons, often the very same facilities that ICE uses for immigration detention.  ↩<\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    5. \n

      Immigration is by and large a civil, administrative — not criminal — legal matter. Non-criminal violations of immigration laws include things like being in the U.S. without proper authorization (“unlawful presence”), overstaying or violating the terms of a visa, and knowingly employing undocumented workers. Federal crimes related to immigration laws are not necessarily all that different in character from those violations, but include things like improper entry, illegal reentry after deportation, and engaging in marriage or other fraud to circumvent immigration laws.  ↩<\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    6. \n

      Intergovernmental service agreements<\/a> (IGSAs) are the contracts under which local jails detain people for the federal government, specifying per diem reimbursement rates and other details. The U.S. Marshals have played a central role in acquiring immigration detention space for ICE in local jails since its inception. In September 2001, the Department of Justice established an Office of the Federal Detention Trustee<\/a> that sought to manage and develop contracted local jail networks for ICE and the U.S. Marshals. This capacity was brought in-house at the U.S. Marshals in 2012, and ICE still regularly uses riders on pre-existing U.S. Marshals jail detention contracts.  ↩<\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    7. \n

      All of ICE’s “alternatives to detention” are operated by BI Incorporated, owned by the major private prison company, the GEO Group.  ↩<\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    8. \n

      Piecing together all of this information is difficult due to gaps in standard data reports on the federal incarceration system and a lack of transparency from federal agencies, especially the U.S. Marshals and ICE. Congress mandates ICE to report summary statistics on detention<\/a>, but during fiscal year 2026, ICE has regularly failed to publish these updates. Since 2022, the U.S. Marshals have similar required reports to Congress on people in the detention system, but these reports are not released publicly by Congress or the agency. See notes in a recent budget request about these reports<\/a>, and the underlying language in the appropriations records<\/a>. For more discussion of data gaps in the federal system, see the section “Spotlight on overlooked problems with federal detention”<\/a> below.  ↩<\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    9. \n

      People held by the U.S. Marshals by sentenced and unsentenced status are from FY2024, via FOIA Request No. 2025-USMS-000858<\/a>; no more recent data has been published. People held by Bureau of Prisons (BOP) are from the June 25, 2026 count<\/a> of 153,729, subtracting the 1,035 people held for ICE in BOP facilities, and the 7,904 people held for USMS in BOP facilities, both numbers reported directly to the author by the BOP via email for June 27, 2026. The number of people under pretrial supervision comes from H-7, Federal Pretrial Services, Defendants Received for and Under Pretrial Supervision, December 31, 2025<\/a>. Probation and supervised release data are from E-2, Federal Probation System, Persons Under Post-Conviction Supervision, as of December 31, 2025<\/a>. (Supervised release also includes a smaller number of people on parole, or mandatory release.) The numbers on people in ICE detention are year-to-date FY2026 averages and people on ICE Alternatives to Detention are from BI Inc.’s Participants Report, July 11, 2026, both published from the ICE Detention Management report for July 20, 2026<\/a>.  ↩<\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    10. \n

      We have data on incarceration and detention since 1984 (unfortunately we don’t have the same historical data on community supervision). We use a variety of federal criminal justice statistics data files, annual reports, and budget information to compile these historical data.
      \n
      \nFor federal prisons, we use the National Prisoner Statistics 1978-2023 (ICPSR 39657) data file published in April 2026, and count only the people that are sentenced to the Bureau of Prisons with a sentence of one year or more. For 2024-2026, we use more recently published data by the Bureau of Prisons, while adjusting for people held in federal prisons on behalf of the U.S. Marshals or ICE.
      \n
      \nFor federal jails, we use data on people held in the U.S. Marshals detention network, whether they are held before or after sentencing, and whether they are held in local, state, private or federal facilities. For 1984-1992, we use Caudell-Feagan, L. “      Federal Detention: The United States Marshals Service’sManagement of a Challenging Program<\/a>,” Table 1, Federal Detainee Population Growth 1984-1992, Federal Probation, 1993. For 1994-2011, we use Office of the Federal Detention Trustee, U.S. Marshals Service Summary Case Processing Statistics, Fiscal Year 1994-2011<\/a>. We interpolate 1993 because it was not available in other sources. For 2012-2024, we rely on the U.S. Marshals Service’s Annual Reports<\/a>: for 2012 to 2015, we use the FY2015 report; for 2016 and 2017, we use the FY2017 report; for 2018 we use the FY2018 report; for 2019-2022 we use the FY2022 report; and for 2022-2024, we use the FY2024 report. For 2025 and 2026, we use the FY2027 U.S. Marshals Federal Prisoner Detention Performance Budget request from April 2026<\/a>.
      \n
      \nFor immigration detention, we use data from FY 1984-FY 2018       compiled by the Marshall Project from various official sources<\/a> for their analysis of immigration detention<\/a>. For 2019-2026, we use Detention Management reports<\/a> published by ICE. Together, these add up to our total for all federal incarceration and detention.
      \n<\/p>\n

      We do not separately address the historical trends for military incarceration or territorial jails that are not a part of the U.S. Marshals or Bureau of Prisons. In recent years, those would contribute roughly an additional 8,000 people to the total.  ↩<\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    11. \n

      Immigration is by and large a civil, administrative matter, but federal laws in 1986, 1994 and 1996 newly criminalized or extended sentences<\/a> for immigration-related criminal offenses.  ↩<\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    12. \n

      Sanctuary policies usually just limit local law enforcement from collaborating with ICE on civil immigration enforcement, but we know of no places that limit collaboration with federal law enforcement agencies on immigration-related criminal charges.  ↩<\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    13. \n

      These annual estimates combine data from the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and the USMS. According to official statistics, there were 7,309 incarcerated people with sentences to the Bureau of Prisons for immigration-related federal crimes as of late June 2026. This is very similar to the numbers in prior years. Getting data on people held by the USMS with an immigration-related charge as the most serious offense is more difficult: the most recent data via FOIA is from FY2024, and FY2025 requires some estimation.
      \n
      \nOn average in FY2024, the USMS held 10,030 people with immigration-related charges, 8,553 of whom were sentenced and 1,476 people of whom were unsentenced, per       FOIA Request No. 2025-USMS-000858<\/a>. These kind of data for FY2025 have not been released by USMS, so we use booking data that are public to make an estimate of the average daily population. According to budget documents<\/a>, during FY2024, 28,007 people were booked into USMS custody on immigration-related offenses and this increased to 49,934 people in FY2025. Due to the rapid increase in bookings for immigration charges (up 78%), we expect that even if people had 10% shorter stays in USMS detention (i.e., due to faster case processing), the average number of people would have increased to 16,094. If the average length of stay was unchanged, the average number of people incarcerated for immigration reasons would have increased to 17,883.
      \n
      \nFor FY2024, we combine the roughly 7,300 people in BOP facilities on immigration-related sentences with the 10,030 people held on immigration-related criminal charges in FY2024 by the USMS, resulting in an estimated total of 17,300 people. For FY2025, we combine the number of people incarcerated in BOP facilities for immigration convictions (about 7,300) with our estimated average number of people held in USMS custody (17,883), resulting in an estimate of around 25,000 people.
      \n        ↩<\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    14. \n

      These projections are in the U.S. Marshals Service, Federal Prisoner Detention budget documents for FY 2027, published in April 2026<\/a>, and are connected to a request for almost $3 billion for detention operations, up 34% from FY2026. It’s unclear whether federal prosecutors will have the capacity to navigate these increased caseloads<\/a>.  ↩<\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    15. \n

      For example, see bookings for a more detailed set of reasons from 1994-2011<\/a> and the limited set of reasons for 2018-2027 in the Federal Prisoner Detention budget documents for FY 2027<\/a>.  ↩<\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    16. \n

      We calculated these numbers using the average daily count of people detained or incarcerated via the U.S. Marshals for FY2024 from FOIA Request No. 2025-USMS-000858<\/a>. For more information on drug cases in federal courts, see Mona Lynch’s book Hard Bargains: The Coercive Power of Drug Laws in Federal Courts<\/i><\/a>.  ↩<\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    17. \n

      The ICE “Custody Operations Budget<\/a>” in FY2025 was $3,919,952,000, and the average daily population in ICE detention in FY2025 was 48,404 people<\/a>. Thus, the average daily cost of ICE detention was $221.87 per person. The most recent average daily cost of incarceration at a federal prison was reported in the Federal Register<\/a> in December 2025 as $129.21 per person. According to recent federal budget documents<\/a>, the USMS Federal Prisoner Detention Budget for FY2025 was $2,236,000,000, and the USMS average daily population in FY2025 was 47,912 people (excluding any held for the federal prison system), an average daily cost of $127.86 per person.  ↩<\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    18. \n

      ICE reports daily program costs and total caseloads in its detention management reports<\/a>, which amounted to an average $1.53 per person, per day for all “alternatives to detention.” In June 2025, the U.S. Courts published cost information for FY2024<\/a> for pretrial supervision ($4,696 per year, or $12.87 per day, per person) and post-sentence community supervision ($4,742 per year, or $12.99 per day, per person).  ↩<\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    19. \n

      The Federal Sentencing Commission explicitly ignores these cases, only collecting data on higher level charges and longer sentences. As a recent report says: “Information on minor and petty offenses are not reported to the Commission as the sentencing guidelines do not apply in those cases.” The Bureau of Justice Statistics’ Federal Justice Statistics program similarly only reports out data on people sentenced to the Bureau of Prisons.  ↩<\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    20. \n

      The most recent report on this part of the federal pretrial system<\/a>, covering data through 2018, was published in 2022.  ↩<\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    21. \n

      For more on this, see the 2022 report, Freedom Denied<\/a> by Alison Siegler and the University of Chicago Law School Federal Criminal Justice Clinic.  ↩<\/a><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      See all the footnotes<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      Because it is so fragmented, the federal system can be particularly hard to understand, which only makes it harder to change effectively through policy. We explain the agencies involved, the loophole that undermines \u2018sanctuary\u2019 policies, and overlooked problems with federal pretrial detention.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":64,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[52],"tags":[116,108,59,62],"coauthors":[111],"class_list":["post-19089","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-briefings","tag-federal-prisons","tag-immigration","tag-jails-bail","tag-probation-parole"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19089","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/64"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=19089"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19089\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":19151,"href":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19089\/revisions\/19151"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19089"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19089"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19089"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=19089"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}