DOJ Sues Ohio Court Over Rule Requiring Warrants for Courthouse Immigration Arrests

"Zero." That is the number of civil immigration arrests U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has made at the Franklin County Municipal Court since March 2026, down from at least 12 in recent years. On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a federal lawsuit against the Ohio court, seeking to strike down the local rule responsible for that drop.[4][6]

The civil complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, targets Local Rule 2.10. Adopted by the municipal bench this past spring, the rule prohibits federal agents from conducting civil arrests of individuals attending court proceedings or conducting lawful business on courthouse property, unless the officers carry a judicial warrant signed by a judge.[4]

The lawsuit names the Franklin County Municipal Court, Administrative and Presiding Judge Jessica D'Varga, and Director of Security Enoch White as defendants in their official capacities. The Justice Department is asking a federal judge to declare the rule unlawful and to issue a preliminary and permanent injunction blocking its enforcement against federal personnel.[2][6]

At the core of the DOJ's argument is the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity, which generally prevents state and local entities from regulating or obstructing federal operations. Federal prosecutors contend that the local court has no authority to superimpose a judicial-warrant requirement on federal immigration enforcement.[1][4]

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, ICE agents are authorized to execute arrests based on administrative warrants issued by the Department of Homeland Security. In certain circumstances—such as when an officer believes an individual is in the country unlawfully and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained—federal law permits warrantless arrests.[5][6]

Justice Department officials argue that courthouses provide a controlled, secure environment for law enforcement operations. Because visitors are screened for weapons and contraband upon entry, arrests conducted within these facilities minimize the risk of flight and physical danger to officers, the targets of the arrest, and the general public.[1][4]

By effectively banning ICE from the courthouse, the DOJ claims the local rule forces agents to conduct at-large apprehensions in public spaces, homes, and workplaces. According to the complaint, these field operations require higher staffing levels, additional surveillance equipment, and greater operational expense. The lawsuit notes that two Columbus-based ICE officers were hospitalized over the past three months due to violence encountered during field arrests, though it did not provide specific details about those incidents.[4][5]

The legal challenge in Ohio is part of a broader, coordinated effort by the Justice Department to dismantle local policies that restrict federal immigration enforcement. The Civil Division has recently pursued similar lawsuits against jurisdictions in New York, New Jersey, California, Virginia, Connecticut, Milwaukee, and Philadelphia, targeting sanctuary policies and courthouse arrest bans.[4]

Local officials and advocates for the rule argue that ICE's presence in and around courthouses deters individuals from accessing the justice system. When the rule was adopted, supporters maintained that the fear of deportation prevents crime victims, witnesses, and defendants from appearing for scheduled hearings, thereby undermining public safety and the administration of justice.[3]

Columbus Mayor Andrew Ginther publicly criticized the DOJ's lawsuit, stating that local institutions should not be used as tools of discrimination. Ginther argued that federal immigration enforcement activities spread fear, undermine community trust, and make it more difficult for local law enforcement to keep residents safe.[3]

The Franklin County Municipal Court has not issued a formal comment on the pending litigation. However, the adopted text of Rule 2.10 includes a purpose statement affirming the court's inherent authority to secure judicial proceedings, alongside a disclaimer stating that the rule should not be construed to violate the Supremacy Clause. The federal court will now determine whether that local authority impermissibly encroaches on federal jurisdiction.[2][4]