A federal judge late Tuesday blocked the Trump administration from making arrests at immigration courthouses nationwide, ruling that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) courthouse arrest policies violated federal administrative law.
U.S. District Judge Casey Pitts, an appointee of former President Biden based in San Francisco, found that ICE's 2025 courthouse-arrest policies were arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires agencies to undertake thorough evaluation before changing policy.
What the Right Is Saying
Department of Homeland Security General Counsel James Percival criticized the ruling sharply on social media platform X. "When a judge sentences a defendant, the defendant is taken into custody," he wrote. "If an alien is ordered removed by an immigration judge, the same should happen."
Percival called the decision "naked judicial activism in service of an anti-American, open borders agenda," arguing that restricting courthouse arrests undermines federal immigration enforcement authority.
Trump administration officials maintain that ICE has legal authority to make arrests at courthouses and that such enforcement is essential to the administration's immigration priorities. The DOJ had previously argued to the court that the 2025 policies represented intentional expansion of arrest authorities at immigration courthouses, though prosecutors later acknowledged a "factual error" in making that assertion.
What the Left Is Saying
Immigration advocates and Democratic lawmakers praised the ruling as a necessary protection for due process. Under the Biden administration, ICE had barred civil immigration enforcement near all types of courthouses after determining that such arrests "may chill individuals' access to courthouses" and could "impair the fair administration of justice."
Civil rights organizations have long argued that courthouse arrests deter immigrants from attending court proceedings for legitimate legal matters, including asylum hearings and other pending cases. The ruling noted that ICE's policies "entirely fail to address the chilling effect of courthouse arrests on noncitizens' attendance at court proceedings," which courts had previously identified as an important factor in restricting such enforcement.
Progressive groups contend that immigrants seeking protection under U.S. law must feel safe appearing before immigration judges without fear of immediate arrest. The decision strengthens protections for vulnerable populations navigating the legal system, supporters say.
What the Numbers Show
The ruling marks the first nationwide injunction on immigration courthouse arrests. A prior case in New York had barred such arrests at two specific locations within that state, but did not extend beyond those venues.
Judge Pitts noted that ICE spent more than six months arguing to the court that its 2025 policies represented a deliberate expansion of arrest authority, only for DOJ counsel to later inform the court that the policy "does not and has never applied to civil immigration enforcement actions in or near Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) immigration courts."
The administrative record before the court contained no evidence that ICE recognized it was removing all prior limitations on civil enforcement activities at immigration courthouses when it issued its 2025 guidance, according to the ruling.
The Bottom Line
Judge Pitts' ruling temporarily blocks ICE from arresting migrants at immigration courts while litigation continues. The decision represents a significant legal setback for the Trump administration's courthouse arrest practices and could affect how federal agents pursue immigration enforcement near judicial buildings.
The case is expected to proceed through the court system, with potential appeals likely. Legal experts will be watching whether higher courts uphold the finding that ICE violated administrative law procedures when changing its courthouse arrest policies.
Immigration attorneys say they are advising clients to continue attending scheduled hearings while monitoring developments in this and related cases.