A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from carrying out immigration arrests at immigration courthouses across the United States, delivering a significant setback to one of the government’s most aggressive immigration enforcement policies.
U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts of the Northern District of California ruled Tuesday that policies adopted by the administration allowing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to arrest migrants attending immigration hearings were unlawful and violated federal administrative law.
The decision vacates the policies nationwide and restores earlier restrictions that limited courthouse arrests to exceptional circumstances involving public safety or national security concerns.
The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by immigrant rights organizations and individuals who argued that the policy discouraged migrants from attending required court appearances, undermining the integrity of the immigration court system. One of the plaintiffs was an asylum seeker who was arrested after attending a hearing in San Francisco.
In his decision, Pitts concluded that the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice failed to provide a reasoned explanation for reversing long-standing policies that generally discouraged immigration arrests at courthouses.
The judge described the administration’s actions as “arbitrary and capricious,” a legal standard under the Administrative Procedure Act used when federal agencies fail to adequately justify policy changes.
The Trump administration reinstated and expanded courthouse arrest authority shortly after returning to office in 2025. Under the policy, ICE officers were permitted to arrest migrants attending immigration proceedings, including asylum seekers and others complying with court requirements.
Critics argued the practice forced individuals to choose between appearing for mandatory hearings and risking arrest, or missing court and potentially facing deportation orders. Advocates for immigrants welcomed the ruling as a victory for due process and access to justice.
Legal groups involved in the challenge argued that immigration courts cannot function effectively if people fear being detained simply for showing up. Several organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union and Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, contended that the policy led to increased absenteeism and undermined confidence in the legal process.
The judge also struck down a related ICE policy that allowed migrants to be held in temporary detention facilities for up to 72 hours. Prior guidance generally limited such detentions to 12 hours. Pitts found that federal officials failed to adequately consider the humanitarian and legal consequences of prolonged detention in facilities designed for short-term holding.
The nationwide order expands on earlier rulings that had already restricted courthouse arrests in specific jurisdictions. In May, a federal judge in New York blocked ICE from conducting most civil immigration arrests at three major Manhattan immigration courthouses, citing concerns that the practice interfered with access to the courts.
When a judge sentences a defendant, the defendant is taken into custody. If an alien is ordered removed by an immigration judge, the same should happen. A district judge ordering otherwise is naked judicial activism in service of an anti-American, open borders agenda. https://t.co/l4WIBX2giF
— James Percival (@DHSGenCounsel) June 23, 2026
The Department of Homeland Security sharply criticized the latest decision. DHS General Counsel James Percival called the ruling “naked judicial activism in service of an anti-American, open borders agenda.” The administration is expected to appeal.
Source link
#Federal #Judge #Bars #Trump #Administration #Detaining #Migrants #Immigration #Hearings
