A federal judge has issued a nationwide ruling that temporarily halts U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from carrying out civil immigration arrests at courthouses, marking a major development in an ongoing legal dispute over immigration enforcement practices.
The decision, issued by U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts in California’s Northern District, expands an earlier regional injunction into a nationwide order. The case began after immigrant advocacy organizations and individuals challenged an ICE policy that allowed officers to arrest people attending immigration court hearings. Judge Pitts concluded that the policy violated the Administrative Procedure Act, finding that federal officials had not adequately justified the change or addressed its broader consequences.
Lawsuit Grew From Bay Area Cases
The legal challenge originated in the San Francisco Bay Area, where immigration attorneys and advocacy groups documented numerous courthouse arrests following the introduction of the policy in 2025. According to court filings, the practice created widespread concern among asylum seekers and other immigrants who feared attending mandatory hearings could lead to immediate detention.
Among the plaintiffs were individuals including Carmen Pablo Sequen and Ligia Garcia, who were arrested after appearing for scheduled immigration proceedings. Their experiences became central to the lawsuit, which argued that the policy discouraged participation in the legal process and undermined access to the courts.
Organizations including the ACLU and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights supported the challenge, contending that immigration courts should remain places where individuals can pursue their legal claims without the expectation of being detained immediately after their hearings.
Court Rejects Government’s Justification
In his ruling, Judge Pitts found that the government failed to sufficiently explain why it departed from earlier policies that generally limited courthouse arrests. The court determined that officials had not properly considered the effects the policy would have on hearing attendance, public confidence, and the administration of justice.
As a result, the nationwide order suspends enforcement of the challenged policy while requiring federal authorities to follow appropriate legal procedures before implementing similar changes in the future.
The decision also restores the longstanding approach that generally discouraged immigration enforcement actions at civil courthouses except under limited circumstances.
Broader Implications
The ruling represents one of the most significant judicial setbacks for the Trump administration’s recent immigration enforcement strategy. While the government is expected to appeal, the decision immediately affects immigration courts across the United States.
Immigration attorneys say the order could encourage more individuals to attend their scheduled hearings without fearing arrest solely because they complied with court requirements. Supporters of the ruling argue that maintaining confidence in the judicial system is essential for ensuring that immigration cases proceed fairly and efficiently.
Although the legal battle is far from over, the nationwide injunction establishes an important precedent in the debate over how immigration enforcement should be balanced with access to the courts. Future appeals could determine whether the restrictions remain in place or whether the policy can be reinstated under revised legal procedures.
