A federal judge in California struck down the Trump administration's policy allowing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to conduct civil immigration arrests at courthouses nationwide, ruling that the government failed to adequately justify the dramatic shift in enforcement practices.
In a 71-page decision, U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts vacated ICE policies adopted in 2025 that expanded immigration arrests at courthouses and allowed detainees to be held in temporary facilities for up to 72 hours. The ruling also invalidated a related policy from the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), which oversees immigration courts.
According to the court order, Pitts granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and formally vacated ICE Policy Nos. 11072.3 and 11072.4, along with EOIR's courthouse-arrest memorandum and ICE's June 2025 "Nationwide Hold Room Waiver." The waiver had extended detention limits from 12 hours to as much as 72 hours.
The decision applies nationwide and represents one of the most significant legal setbacks to President Donald Trump's immigration enforcement agenda since his return to office in January 2025.
Judge Pitts found that the administration's actions violated the federal Administrative Procedure Act because officials failed to provide a reasoned explanation for abandoning long-standing restrictions on courthouse arrests. He concluded that the policies were "arbitrary and capricious," a legal standard often used when courts determine agencies have not adequately justified major policy changes.
For decades, federal immigration authorities generally treated courthouses as sensitive locations, limiting arrests except in circumstances involving public safety or national security concerns. Those restrictions were rolled back in 2025 as the administration sought to accelerate deportations.
Civil rights groups argued that the policy forced immigrants into an impossible choice: attend mandatory court hearings and risk arrest, or skip court and face removal orders for failing to appear. The judge agreed that widespread courthouse arrests created a chilling effect on participation in immigration proceedings.
Cases That Led to the Lawsuit
The lawsuit was brought by immigrants and advocacy groups after a series of courthouse arrests that began escalating in 2025.
One of the central cases involved an asylum seeker who was arrested after attending a routine immigration hearing in San Francisco. That arrest became part of a broader legal challenge to ICE's courthouse enforcement strategy.
Advocates documented dozens of arrests at immigration courthouses across California and elsewhere after the policy change. Reports from San Francisco immigration courts described asylum seekers and migrants being detained immediately after complying with court orders and appearing for scheduled hearings.
Among the plaintiffs was a Guatemalan mother seeking asylum who narrowly avoided detention after attending immigration proceedings. Her case became emblematic of concerns that courthouse arrests were discouraging immigrants from pursuing legal claims through the judicial system.
The ruling follows a series of earlier court challenges. In December 2025, Judge Pitts temporarily blocked the policy in Northern and Central California, finding that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claims. Similar lawsuits emerged in New York and Massachusetts, where federal judges also questioned or restricted courthouse arrests.
The decision effectively restores prior restrictions on immigration courthouse arrests nationwide while the government decides whether to appeal. The Trump administration sharply criticized the ruling, with Homeland Security officials calling it an example of judicial overreach.
Unless an appeals court intervenes, ICE will no longer be able to rely on the vacated policies to conduct routine civil immigration arrests at courthouses across the United States. The ruling also reinstates the previous 12-hour limit on holding migrants in temporary detention facilities.
