Federal Judge Vacates Trump Administration Policies Expanding ICE Courthouse Arrests

A federal judge in California has struck down nationwide Trump administration policies that expanded the ability of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to arrest noncitizens at courthouses and hold them in short-term facilities for up to 72 hours.[1][2]

The ruling, issued Tuesday by U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts, vacates the administration's sweeping enforcement directives, reverting ICE operations to stricter Biden-era guardrails. The decision effectively halts a key mechanism in the administration's aggressive mass deportation plans.[1]

In a 71-page opinion, Judge Pitts determined that the policies violated the Administrative Procedure Act, labeling the government's actions "arbitrary and capricious." He found that the Justice Department and ICE failed to provide a reasoned explanation for dismantling previous restrictions.[2][3]

"For 80 years, Congress has commanded federal agencies to think before they act," Pitts wrote, concluding that the administration demonstrated a "complete lack of decision-making" when it authorized the expanded enforcement measures without considering the consequences.[3]

The class-action lawsuit was spearheaded by Carmen Aracely Pablo Sequen, a Guatemalan asylum-seeker who was detained by ICE agents immediately after leaving a routine hearing at a San Francisco immigration court.

Prior to the Trump administration's 2025 policy shift, ICE guidance from 2014 through 2021 strictly limited courthouse arrests. Agents were generally restricted to targeting individuals suspected of terrorism, espionage, or gang affiliation, citing concerns that widespread arrests would deter immigrants from attending court dates.

The Trump administration scrapped those guardrails upon taking office, arguing that individuals ordered removed by an immigration judge should be immediately taken into custody. The policy shift led to a surge in apprehensions in courthouse hallways, drawing fierce condemnation from civil rights groups.[2][3]

The ruling also struck down a detention waiver that allowed ICE to hold detainees in short-term holding cells for up to 72 hours—a significant increase from the previous 12-hour limit. Judge Pitts noted that the extended detentions subjected individuals to "punitive conditions of confinement" in facilities not designed for overnight stays.[2][3]

The Department of Homeland Security swiftly condemned the judicial intervention. DHS General Counsel James Percival characterized the decision as "naked judicial activism in service of an anti-American, open borders agenda," arguing that routine custody following a removal order is standard law enforcement practice.[1][2][3]

Conversely, immigrant advocacy groups celebrated the injunction. Nisha Kashyap, an attorney with the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights representing the plaintiffs, stated that the administration had "turned immigration courts into hunting grounds," and praised the ruling for restoring safe access to the justice system.

The nationwide injunction adds to mounting legal hurdles for the administration's enforcement agenda. Last month, a federal judge in New York issued a similar ruling blocking ICE courthouse arrests specifically in Manhattan, citing similar procedural violations.[2]

The Justice Department is expected to appeal the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, setting the stage for a protracted legal battle over the executive branch's authority to dictate immigration enforcement tactics without extensive administrative review.[1][2]