Georgia Immigration Court Blocks Transparency After Watchdog Reports Spike in Detentions

A court-watching program that exposed troubling patterns at Georgia's immigration detention facilities has been locked out of virtual hearings -- right after sharing its findings with a federal judge.

The Georgia Asylum and Immigration Network (GAIN) trained volunteers to monitor virtual immigration bond hearings at the Stewart Immigration Court in Lumpkin, tracking whether detained immigrants were granted release and under what conditions. At the end of February, those volunteers were suddenly barred from accessing the online proceedings.

The timing wasn't subtle. GAIN had just submitted an affidavit to Judge Clay Land in the Middle District Court of Georgia documenting a sharp increase in negative outcomes for immigrants seeking bond at Stewart -- one of the nation's largest immigration detention centers.

"It's important to note that these hearings are open to the public by law," said Adriana Heffley, GAIN's legal director of asylum and human rights. "We've received feedback from attorneys and advocates that the transparency is welcome."

Except, apparently, when that transparency reveals inconvenient truths about how the system operates.

Watching the Watchers

GAIN launched its Court Watch program in 2024 to fill a critical gap in oversight. Volunteers monitored virtual bond hearings to collect data on immigrants' countries of origin, case details, bond decisions, and amounts set by judges. The goal was to identify patterns that might indicate bias or procedural failures -- the kind of systemic issues that only become visible when someone is actually paying attention.

Alizeh Sheikh, the Equal Justice Works Fellow who started the program, said court watch initiatives nationwide have faced restricted access to virtual hearings since November 2025. But GAIN's volunteers weren't blocked until after Sheikh filed that affidavit with Judge Land.

The message couldn't be clearer: shine a light on what's happening inside immigration courts, and the lights get turned off.

Stewart's Track Record

The Stewart Detention Center has long been a flashpoint for immigration enforcement abuses. Located in rural southwest Georgia, the facility has faced repeated allegations of inadequate medical care, sexual assault, and due process violations. Detained immigrants there often lack access to legal representation and face judges with some of the lowest bond grant rates in the country.

GAIN's court-watching data gave advocates hard numbers to back up what attorneys had been reporting anecdotally: something had shifted at Stewart, and immigrants were being denied bond at higher rates.

That kind of documentation is exactly what makes court watch programs valuable -- and exactly what makes them threatening to a system that prefers to operate in the shadows.

Public Hearings, Private Access

Immigration court proceedings are required by federal regulation to be open to the public unless specifically closed for privacy or security reasons. Virtual hearings during and after the pandemic were supposed to expand access, allowing advocates and journalists to monitor cases without traveling to remote detention facilities.

Instead, immigration courts have used the virtual format as a chokepoint. By controlling who gets login credentials, they can effectively bar the public from hearings that are nominally open -- all without formally closing the courtroom.

Heffley emphasized that GAIN's volunteers weren't disrupting proceedings or violating any rules. They were simply observing, taking notes, and compiling data -- the basic work of public accountability.

"Attorneys and advocates welcome the transparency," she said. Apparently, the immigration court system does not.

A Pattern of Retaliation

GAIN's experience fits a broader pattern of the Trump administration cracking down on oversight and transparency around immigration enforcement. ICE has restricted media access to detention facilities, delayed or denied Freedom of Information Act requests, and pushed back against court-ordered monitoring.

The common thread: any attempt to document what's actually happening to detained immigrants is treated as a threat.

Court watch programs exist because immigration proceedings lack many of the safeguards of criminal courts. There's no right to appointed counsel. Judges are employees of the Department of Justice, not independent Article III judges. Detention facilities are often in isolated locations, far from major cities and legal resources.

When volunteers step in to fill that accountability gap, blocking their access isn't about courtroom management. It's about avoiding scrutiny.

What Happens in the Dark

Without independent monitoring, there's no way to know if bond decisions are consistent, if certain judges are denying release at disproportionate rates, or if detention policies are being applied fairly. That's not a bug in the system -- for ICE and the immigration courts, it's a feature.

GAIN says it will continue fighting for access to the hearings. But the damage is already done. Every day volunteers are locked out is another day of proceedings that happen without public oversight, another set of bond decisions made in the dark.

The law says these hearings are public. The immigration court system just decided the public isn't welcome anymore.