Federal Judge in California Issues Nationwide Block on ICE Arrests Inside Immigration Courts

A federal judge in California issued a nationwide preliminary injunction on June 23, 2026, barring U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents from conducting civil arrests inside immigration courthouses. U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts of the Northern District of California ruled in a class-action lawsuit brought by immigration advocacy organizations that the Trump administration’s policy shift allowing such arrests violated the Administrative Procedure Act.

The decision halts a practice that had expanded under the current administration as part of intensified interior enforcement efforts targeting individuals with removal orders or other immigration violations. ICE agents had been detaining noncitizens during routine hearings or check-ins at immigration courts, a tactic critics of the policy described as creating a chilling effect on court attendance while supporters viewed it as an efficient means of executing lawful removal proceedings.

Judge Pitts, a Biden appointee, found that federal officials failed to adequately justify the change from prior guidance that had restricted courthouse arrests except in limited circumstances, such as threats to national security. The ruling described the policy as “arbitrary and capricious” under administrative law standards because officials did not sufficiently address concerns that widespread arrests would deter immigrants from appearing at mandatory proceedings. The judge noted that the administration appeared to have dismissed its own earlier assessments of the potential negative impact on court attendance rates.

The lawsuit challenged the policy on grounds that it undermined access to immigration proceedings and exposed detainees to prolonged holds in facilities designed for short-term processing. Advocacy groups argued the arrests were unconstitutional in practice, though the court’s decision centered primarily on procedural violations rather than constitutional claims. The injunction applies to immigration courts across the country.

Background on the policy shows it emerged as the Trump administration moved to accelerate deportations and interior enforcement following the 2024 election. Previous guidelines, including those from the prior administration, had sought to limit sensitive-location arrests to preserve the functioning of courts and encourage compliance with hearing notices. The relaxation led to increased detentions at courthouses, particularly in areas with high volumes of removal cases.

Proponents of robust enforcement argue that courthouse arrests allow agents to locate individuals who are already subject to immigration proceedings, reducing the need for resource-intensive street operations and minimizing risks associated with locating fugitives in communities. Data from enforcement periods indicate that many targets of such actions have final removal orders or have failed to appear at prior hearings. Opponents, including the plaintiffs in this case, contend that the practice discourages participation in the legal system and creates an atmosphere of fear around courthouses.

The ruling represents another instance of federal courts intervening in executive branch immigration enforcement priorities. The Trump administration has prioritized large-scale removals of individuals unlawfully present in the United States, including those with criminal records or recent border encounters. Legal challenges from advocacy groups have frequently targeted operational tactics, requiring agencies to defend policy changes under APA scrutiny.

Judge Pitts’ order restores prior limitations on courthouse arrests pending further litigation. The decision does not prevent ICE from making arrests outside court facilities or pursuing other enforcement methods. Government attorneys are expected to appeal or seek modifications, as the administration has maintained that interior enforcement remains essential to upholding immigration law and deterring unlawful presence.

The case highlights ongoing tensions between judicial oversight of administrative actions and executive authority to implement immigration policy. As the administration continues its enforcement agenda, additional legal battles over operational details are anticipated in districts across the country.