Marriott has not denied that a hotel in its portfolio was used by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to hold families in Louisiana, despite the company’s public stance since 2019 opposing detention at its properties. Advocates and local attorneys say ICE placed two families, including three U.S. citizen children, in a Marriott‑branded hotel in April 2025 before deportations, raising fresh questions about franchise practices during enforcement surges.
In statements this week, Marriott reiterated language it has used for years: “Our hotels are not configured to be detention facilities, but to be open to guests and community members as well.” The company did not issue a categorical denial about the Louisiana incident — a stance advocacy groups interpret as tacit acknowledgment even as the brand says it opposes such use.
Public attention spiked after social media posts and independent outlets reported that families were kept out of contact with relatives and lawyers while inside the hotel, then moved toward removal. According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, reports spread widely beginning August 19, spurring calls for clearer rules on hotel detention. ICE has not released an official statement addressing the specific hotel use this year.
Background and corporate stance
- In 2019, during heightened immigration enforcement, Marriott publicly stated: “We have made the decision to decline any requests” from ICE to use its properties as detention space.
- At that time, the brand also said it had no indication any hotel in its system had been asked by the government to detain people.
- Much of Marriott’s portfolio operates under a franchise model, meaning many properties are owned and managed by separate companies that sign onto brand standards but make day‑to‑day decisions on site.
This franchise structure is central to why corporate statements may not translate into uniform on‑the‑ground practice.
Renewed scrutiny: April 2025 incident
Advocates tracking the cases say the April 2025 episode involved two families with three U.S. citizen children. Relatives reportedly struggled to reach the parents while ICE held them inside the hotel, raising serious due process concerns.
When families cannot make calls or speak to a lawyer, they risk missing time‑sensitive defenses that can halt removal. Examples include:
- Presenting proof of U.S. citizenship for children
- Requesting credible fear interviews
- Confirming pending cases in immigration court
Hotel use also blurs lines of oversight. Detention centers are subject to standards on medical access, legal visits, and record‑keeping; a standard hotel room is not. There are:
- No published rules about attorney access in a hotel setting used for custody
- No public reporting on who was held, for how long, or under what conditions
Legal scholars warn this gap can violate state licensing rules for child welfare and fails to meet federal detention standards for families.
The lack of clear rules and reporting creates the risk that families can be detained in commercial spaces without the safeguards expected in detention facilities.
Policy gaps and franchise oversight
Marriott’s franchise model is at the center of the debate. Key issues include:
- Brand leaders say they oppose hotel detention, yet franchise owners can be pressured to sign short‑term agreements with third‑party vendors acting for ICE.
- Such arrangements can bypass corporate headquarters, particularly without real‑time monitoring and strict contract prohibitions.
- Industry analysts identify this as a known weak point: an individual property can make choices that contradict corporate policy and public promises.
Advocacy groups are calling for concrete safeguards. Their demands include:
- A categorical ban with teeth from Marriott that prohibits franchisees from allowing detention use
- Audits and enforcement mechanisms for properties that violate policy
- Whistleblower channels and swift penalties for properties that work with ICE to detain people
- Transparency measures, including public disclosure of any government bookings tied to enforcement and clear notices to guests and staff if a property is approached for such use
Supporters argue that sunlight would reduce confusion and protect families who might otherwise be hidden in plain sight.
ICE capacity and practices
For ICE, using hotels underscores ongoing capacity strains. During surge periods, officers use short‑term placements when detention space is full or far away. Historically, ICE has worked with contractors to arrange transport and temporary housing.
- The lack of a standard, public notice process means communities often learn about hotel use only after families are moved.
- ICE’s page on detention management outlines the agency’s broader responsibilities but does not detail hotel practices. For official information, see https://www.ice.gov/detain.
Practical steps for families and advocates
When a loved one is detained, the stakes are direct and personal. Advocates suggest practical steps:
- Keep copies of passports, birth certificates, and immigration papers in a safe place.
- Call local legal aid, the ACLU, or Sanctuary DMV to request rapid help.
- Ask for the detainee’s “A‑Number” to track custody and case status.
These measures can improve the chance of swift legal contact and reduce the risk of missed deadlines or lost opportunities to assert critical defenses.
Stakes for Marriott, lawmakers, and communities
Marriott now faces two tests:
- Rebuilding trust with travelers and guests
- Enforcing standards across a sprawling franchise network
Shareholders and guests will want clarity on whether a Marriott‑branded hotel can be used again in this way and how the company will prevent it. Some hotel owners also seek clearer guidance so they are not stuck between a government request and brand rules.
Lawmakers are watching. Several members of Congress have pushed for more oversight of private sector roles in immigration enforcement, including disclosure rules for contracts with ICE. Advocates argue that a simple reporting requirement — who, when, where — would make it harder to hide families in commercial spaces and easier for lawyers to find clients quickly. Industry groups counter that hotels should not be turned into policing hubs and insist any rules should be uniform across chains.
Bottom line
- The core facts remain narrow but serious: In April 2025, two families, including three U.S. citizen children, were held by ICE in a Marriott‑branded hotel in Louisiana.
- Public reports describe blocked communication while families were in the hotel.
- Marriott repeated its general opposition but did not deny use of a property in its system.
Unless company policy shifts from statements to enforceable guardrails — including contract prohibitions, monitoring, and transparency — the gap between brand promises and on‑the‑ground actions will continue to draw criticism from guests, advocates, and local communities.
This Article in a Nutshell
A Marriott‑branded Louisiana hotel reportedly held two families, including three U.S. citizen children, in April 2025. Marriott repeated its 2019 opposition yet avoided a direct denial. Advocates demand enforceable bans, franchise audits, transparency, and whistleblower protections to prevent hotels being used as de facto detention spaces during ICE surges.
