A federal district court in Washington, D.C., has granted five noncitizen mothers enrolled in Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program permission to proceed under pseudonyms in a lawsuit challenging an internal ICE directive that required officers to place participants on GPS ankle monitors whenever possible. The ruling, issued by Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, allows the plaintiffs — identified only as M.O. and four others — to keep their identities confidential as they seek to vacate the June 2025 directive known as the Helland Memorandum.
The plaintiffs, each of whom has a pending application for asylum, withholding of removal, or similar humanitarian protection, allege that the memorandum instructed ICE officers to "escalate [the] supervision level" of ATD participants "to GPS ankle monitors whenever possible" and to "increase reporting requirements regardless of case type." According to the complaint, none of the women had violated their conditions of release before being fitted with body-worn GPS monitors. The plaintiffs describe physical, psychological, and economic harms resulting from the devices.
In a memorandum opinion and order filed in the case M.O. v. Helland, the court applied a five-factor balancing test to determine whether the plaintiffs had overcome the general presumption in favor of disclosing litigants' identities. The court found that the first two factors — whether the justification is to preserve privacy in a matter of sensitive and highly personal nature, and whether identification poses a risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm — "strongly support pseudonymity."
The court noted that the plaintiffs do not seek anonymity merely to avoid the annoyance and criticism that may attend any litigation, but to preserve privacy in a matter of sensitive and highly personal nature, including maintaining their and their family members' safety. The ruling cited prior decisions in the same district recognizing that confidentiality for asylum seekers is vital because disclosure could subject claimants to retaliatory measures by government authorities or non-state actors.
The court also observed that the plaintiffs' arguments did not rest on generalities, distinguishing their case from others where pseudonymity was denied. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had met their burden to overcome the presumption in favor of disclosing their identities.
The ruling grants the motion for leave to proceed under pseudonyms, subject to any further consideration by the United States District Judge to whom the case is randomly assigned. The plaintiffs are suing on behalf of themselves and a putative nationwide class, seeking vacatur of the Helland Memorandum on grounds that it is a legislative rule issued without notice and comment, is arbitrary and capricious, exceeds agency authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act, flouts the agency's own regulations and policies, and violates procedural due process.
The defendants named in the suit include Dawnisha Helland, in her official capacity as Acting Assistant Director of ICE's Non-Detained Management Division, along with other ICE and Department of Homeland Security officials. No official response from the defendants is reported in the court filing.