Woman Sues Contractor Over Chicago Hotel Detention

A federal lawsuit alleges an ICE contractor and hotel operator held a mother and child in a locked room.

Updated on Oct. 15, 2026 in Immigration

Woman Sues Contractor Over Chicago Hotel Detention

Valentina Galvis filed a lawsuit on September 29, 2026, alleging she and her child were unlawfully detained in a Chicago airport hotel. The filing claims an ICE contractor and hotel operator profited from holding them in a makeshift detention cell.

Why it matters

The case highlights concerns regarding the use of private contractors for federal immigration detention. The plaintiff alleges the entities prioritized profit over legal requirements and individual safety during the five-day detention.

The lawsuit seeks more than $50,000 in compensatory damages following the detention of Galvis and her son in an airport hotel. MVM Inc. has secured over $1.3 billion in ICE contracts since fiscal year 2020.

The players

Valentina Galvis

She is a woman from Colombia who was detained at a Chicago immigration court and remains at risk of deportation.

MVM Inc.

This private security firm is a federal contractor that has provided services to the U.S. government for decades.

Sonesta International Hotels Corporation

This is a global hospitality company that operates numerous lodging properties across the United States.

The details

Galvis was arrested by ICE at a Chicago immigration court in June 2025 before being transported by MVM employees to the Sonesta Chicago O'Hare Airport Rosemont. The suit alleges employees utilized a hotel room as a locked cell to hold the pair for five days.

Galvis was arrested by ICE in Chicago in June 2025.
The detention in an airport hotel occurred in the summer of 2025.
The lawsuit was filed on September 29, 2026.
The Homeland Security Secretary held a press conference on September 30, 2026.

Political Context

Opponents of current detention practices argue that the use of private hotels as makeshift jails violates the spirit of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Advocacy groups contend that such outsourcing lacks the necessary oversight and medical standards required for federal custody.

Residents may see increased scrutiny regarding the use of local facilities for federal operations. The case could lead to new regulations or local ordinances governing the use of hospitality venues for government detention purposes.

The takeaway

This case underscores the complex legal battles emerging from the intersection of private corporate contracting and federal immigration policy. Readers should monitor court updates for potential changes in how government agencies utilize third-party facilities for detention.