A federal judge in California issued a nationwide block on Tuesday, June 23, on the Trump administration’s policy allowing immigration agents to arrest non-U.S. citizens at immigration courthouses.
U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts ruled that the approach violated basic administrative rules and created fear for immigrants trying to follow the legal process.
Judge Issues Nationwide Block on Courthouse Immigration Arrests
Immigration and Customs Enforcement started making more arrests in and around immigration courts last year. Agents sometimes detained migrants right after their hearings in hallways.
Lawyers and advocates said the practice turned courthouses into places of intimidation instead of justice. People who showed up for their cases worried they would be taken into custody on the spot.
The Trump administration had scrapped earlier guidance that restricted such enforcement actions near courthouses.
Officials argued the old limits tied their hands and kept them from grabbing dangerous individuals.
But the new rules led to a sharp increase in arrests at immigration courts, where many noncitizens appear seeking lawful status or fighting deportation.
Also Read:Â Judge Hands Antifa Leader 100 Years for Terror Attack on ICE Facility
In a 71-page decision, Judge Pitts called the policies arbitrary and capricious. He said the government failed to provide reasoned explanations for dropping the previous restrictions and for not imposing limits on immigration courthouses themselves. The ruling pointed to the “chilling effect” on people’s willingness to attend court.
Pitts wrote that the policies did not address how arrests at courthouses discourage noncitizens from attending proceedings.
He rejected the idea that simply extending other rules would fix the problems. The judge had already placed a temporary hold on the practice in the Northern District of California.
On Tuesday, he made the block nationwide after denying the government’s request to keep it narrow.
Court Hears Arguments over Impact on Immigration Enforcement
Jordan Wells, a senior staff attorney at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, welcomed the decision.
“The courthouse is meant to be a refuge for the pursuit of justice, not a hunting ground for ICE,” he said as first reported by CNN. “No immigrant, whether appearing in San Francisco, Miami, Chicago, or New York, should be forced to choose between their liberty and their day in court.”
Department of Homeland Security General Counsel James Percival poked holes in the ruling, saying: “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.”
Also Read: Trump’s Social Security Tax Cuts Face Scrutiny Over $168 Billion Revenue Loss
Percival called the ruling “naked judicial activism in service of an anti-American, open borders agenda.”
The decision marks the second recent court loss for the administration on this issue. Last month, a federal judge in New York barred similar arrests at immigration courts there.
Those actions had triggered protests, including the arrest of more than a dozen Democratic elected officials at one site.
Legal Challenge Highlights Tensions over Deportation Policy
The policy was part of major efforts to ramp up deportations, with Trump and his allies saying it helped enforce the law more effectively.
Critics asserted it undermined due process and made the entire immigration court system less functional by scaring people away from hearings.
DOJ lawyers had asked Pitts to limit any ruling to the San Francisco area, saying a wider block would hurt operations.
The judge disagreed, writing that it was not clear the change would seriously hamper ICE’s work overall.
The case started after lawsuits by immigrants and advocacy groups who said the arrests punished people for trying to participate in the legal system.
Government Expected Appeal the Ruling
Many of those detained had come to court for routine matters like asylum claims or bond hearings. Evidence showed a drop in attendance at some proceedings after the policy took hold.
Immigration courts handle hundreds of thousands of cases each year. Advocates have long warned that enforcement inside or right outside them erodes trust.
Defense attorneys said clients became reluctant to appear, resulting in more in-absentia removal orders.
The ruling is likely going to face appeals as the Trump administration pushes forward with its immigration priorities.
