A federal judge in California has issued a nationwide injunction preventing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from making arrests inside immigration courts, halting a tactic employed during the previous administration’s intensified immigration enforcement efforts. The ruling came on June 23 and addresses a contentious policy shift that reversed ICE’s prior guidance against apprehensions in or near immigration courthouses.
Since the change, ICE has arrested numerous individuals accused of being in the country illegally as they attended routine immigration hearings. Incidents cited in Los Angeles include the detention of a teen shortly after his high school graduation and a father handcuffed in front of his young son just after an immigration judge dismissed his deportation case. Immigration attorneys have criticized the arrests, arguing that they instill fear among court attendees who are seeking to comply with legal procedures and effectively transform courthouses into sites of enforcement rather than justice.
The ruling, authored by Judge Casey Pitts of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, spans 71 pages and characterizes ICE’s practice as “arbitrary and capricious.” Pitts emphasized that the agency failed to adequately consider the negative consequences such arrests have on court attendance, which is essential for the immigration justice system to function properly. He noted that noncitizens face a dire dilemma: appear at court and risk arrest or avoid hearings and risk removal orders issued in absentia. The number of such removals has risen notably, from approximately 19,000 in fiscal year 2024 to over 50,000 in fiscal year 2025.
The case originated in August when a Guatemalan asylum seeker sued after being taken into custody following a routine hearing in San Francisco and subjected to inadequate detention conditions, including insufficient hygiene and medical care, as well as limited legal access. Tuesday’s ruling builds on a more limited decision by Pitts in November, which restricted ICE from making arrests at immigration courts across Northern California but did not extend nationwide.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) strongly opposed the judge’s order. James Percival, DHS general counsel, described the ruling as “naked judicial activism” aligned with an “anti-American, open borders agenda.” He argued that taking custody of individuals ordered removed mirrors standard judicial procedure in other criminal cases. Gene Hamilton, a former Justice Department official known for his role in ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, also criticized the ruling, calling it lawless and predicting it would be overturned on appeal.
Meanwhile, lawmakers have entered the debate. Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.) endorsed the court’s decision, urging Congress to enshrine the ban on courthouse arrests into law. She framed such enforcement actions as punitive measures against immigrants who are making good faith efforts to comply with immigration laws, asserting that they violate principles of fairness.
The ruling follows a similar injunction issued last month by a federal judge in New York City and adds to ongoing legal and political challenges regarding ICE’s enforcement strategies at immigration courts nationwide.