U.S. Federal Court Bars ICE Enforcement and Plainclothes Arrests Inside Immigration Courthouses Nationwide

A United States federal court has issued an injunction prohibiting federal immigration authorities from arresting individuals inside immigration courthouses nationwide. The decision orders an immediate halt to operations where agents detain individuals appearing for scheduled immigration proceedings. The judgment marks a substantial legal check on federal enforcement tactics within administrative legal facilities across the country. U.S. District Judge Casey Pitts of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California authored the ruling from San Francisco. Judge Pitts determined that federal immigration agencies reversed their long-standing non-enforcement policies at courthouses without providing adequate reasoned analysis. The court found that this administrative reversal failed to satisfy basic requirements established by federal law for regulatory policy changes. The court anchored its holding in the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946, commonly known as the APA. This statute establishes standards governing how federal agencies develop, revise, and execute their rules and procedures. The law mandates that federal administrative bodies give valid legal rationales and examine foreseeable consequences before altering established agency actions. In the written opinion, Judge Pitts underscored that Congress intended administrative agencies to examine the full impact of their policy shifts. The judge stated that the federal government completely failed to evaluate the deterrent effect of courthouse detentions on community attendance at mandatory court hearings. Without assessing that impact, the agency could not justify altering decades of protective administrative precedent. The dispute stemmed from an enforcement practice where federal immigration cases were formally dismissed during proceedings, immediately exposing individuals to expedited detention. Plainclothes agents from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, operating under the Department of Homeland Security, frequently waited in courthouse hallways to take individuals into custody as they exited courtrooms. Legal advocacy organizations and civil rights groups argued that the presence of enforcement officers undermined due process and the fundamental right to a fair hearing. They contended that fear of immediate detention discouraged undocumented residents, crime victims, and essential witnesses from appearing to testify or contest their removal proceedings. Plaintiffs asserted that courthouse spaces must maintain operational neutrality to preserve judicial access. Judge Pitts also addressed facility detention procedures, faulting immigration personnel for keeping several individuals inside nearby holding cells well beyond allowable statutory time limits. The ruling noted that some detainees were held longer than the prescribed 12-hour maximum without receiving proper legal justification. These practices contributed to the court finding systemic procedural violations. Federal officials challenged the decision and expressed strong disagreement with the nationwide scope of the injunction. James Percival, general counsel for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, characterized the court's order as judicial overreach that improperly curtails statutory removal duties. Department representatives argued that officials must maintain authority to detain noncitizens whose immigration petitions are rejected by immigration judges. Prior to this nationwide ruling, lower courts had divided over whether federal judges could limit immigration enforcement activities at judicial facilities. A federal court in New York had previously enjoined similar courthouse arrests, but that holding applied strictly within that state's geographic boundaries. Judge Pitts's decision significantly expands judicial intervention by applying the ban across every immigration jurisdiction in the nation. Legal scholars note that the decision will likely be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The pending appellate review will weigh the executive branch's broad constitutional authority over immigration enforcement against judicial oversight under administrative statutes. Until higher courts intervene, federal agents remain prohibited from staging detentions within immigration court facilities.