Federal judge bans ICE from arresting people in immigration courts
A man from Colombia seeking asylum is detained by federal agents as he attends a hearing in immigration court in New York City on Oct. 27, 2025. (Michael M. Santiago / Getty Images) 
By Clara Harter Staff Writer Follow June 23, 2026 Updated 9:48 PM PT - Click here to listen to this article
- Share via
This is read by an automated voice. Please report any issues or inconsistencies here.
A federal judge in California has issued a ruling banning Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents from making arrests inside immigration courts nationwide, blocking one of the Trump administration’s strategies for carrying out mass deportations.
When the Trump administration began its crackdown on illegal immigration last year, ICE reversed its previous guidance against making arrests in or near immigration courthouses.
As a result, many people accused of being in the country illegally have been detained and separated from their families when they show up for routine immigration hearings and check-ins.
In Los Angeles, the policy shift led to sweeping arrests at immigration courts, including a teenager who was detained a day after he graduated high school with honors and a father handcuffed in front of his 8-year-old son moments after a judge issued a dismissal of his deportation case.
Immigration attorneys have spoken out against the practice, saying it punishes people who are trying to comply with the rules and turns the justice system into a place of fear. The Department of Homeland Security has argued that courts are a safe and convenient place to detain people who are in the country illegally.
On Tuesday, Judge P. Casey Pitts, with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, issued a 71-page ruling calling the practice “arbitrary and capricious” and saying that it conflicted with prior concerns ICE had raised about the negative effect courthouse arrests have on attendance rates. Pitts was nominated to the federal bench by President Biden.
“The policies entirely fail to address the chilling effect of courthouse arrests on noncitizens’ attendance at court proceedings, which is both a critical factor underlying ICE’s 2021 guidance and an ‘important aspect of the problem’ in its own right,” Pitts wrote.
James Percival, the general counsel for the Department of Homeland Security, decried the ruling in a statement on X, calling it “naked judicial activism in service of an anti-American, open borders agenda.”
“When a judge sentences a defendant, the defendant is taken into custody,” Percival wrote. “If an alien is ordered removed by an immigration judge, the same should happen.”
Attorney Gene Hamilton, who played a key role in ending Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals while working in the Justice Department during Trump’s first term, lambasted the ruling as lawless.
“ICE can’t arrest illegal aliens at immigration court?” he wrote in a statement on X. “Won’t last on appeal. But more insanity intended to eliminate immigration enforcement.”
The ruling was issued as part of a class-action lawsuit filed by noncitizens challenging ICE’s recent practice of making arrests at immigration courthouses and detaining people for extended periods in facilities designed for short-term holds.
The case was initiated in August by an asylum-seeker from Guatemala who was arrested after leaving a routine immigration hearing in San Francisco and then held without access to adequate hygiene, sanitation, medical care and legal advice, according to the complaint.
Tuesday’s ruling follows a similar decision issued by Pitts in November that more narrowly restricted ICE from making arrests at immigration courthouses across Northern California, which he said made noncitizens face a choice between “two irreparable harms.”
“First, they may appear in immigration court and face likely arrest and detention,” he wrote in December. “Alternatively, noncitizens may choose not to appear and instead to forego their opportunity to pursue their claims for asylum or other relief from removal.”
Most people who do not show up for court hearings are ordered removed in absentia. The number of such orders issued sharply increased from around 19,000 in fiscal year 2024 to more than 50,000 in fiscal year 2025, according to Justice Department data.
Last month, a federal judge issued a ruling largely barring ICE from making such arrests at immigration courthouses in New York City.
On Tuesday, Democratic New Jersey Congresswoman Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman called on Congress to codify Pitt’s latest ruling into law by passing a bill that would ban federal agents from arresting people who show up to have their immigration cases reviewed.
“Immigrants attempting to follow immigration laws should not be punished for their good faith efforts,” she said in a statement. “The systematic arrest of immigrants attending court hearings and other appointments related to their status violates fundamental values of fairness.”
Times staff writer Sonja Sharp contributed to this report.
More to Read
Badenoch blasts 'moaning' female Labour MPs over Burnham jobs 'quota'
Kemi Badenoch has told Labour women to earn a job in Andy Burnham's Cabinet instead of demanding they are handed jobs because of their gender.
The Tory leader lashed out today amid reports that female MPs are demanding the de-facto new prime minister introduce a 50:50 gender split 'quota' in his government.
Amid reports that former foreign secretary David Miliband is being lined up to return to the role, possibly with his brother Ed as Chancellor, one female minister also complained that Burnham could not have 'more Milibands than women' in the top posts.
But in a scathing article in the Times today Mrs Badenoch told them to 'stop moaning' and get chosen on merit instead of retreating into 'more of the failed identity politics that is holding back our country'.
'There are many, many reasons why you shouldn't have any Milibands in the cabinet,' she said.
'But complaining that the boys haven't given them the right jobs or that the boys are taking all the jobs, just shows that Labour's women still don't get it.'
The idea of quotas was also attacked by Baroness Jacqui Smith, Labour's Skills Minister.
Asked by Times Radio if Mr Burnham should reserve jobs for women, she said: 'No, I think what Andy Burnham should be doing is building the very best team around him to change this country.'
A letter written by the Women's Parliamentary Labour Party has called on Mr Burnham to ensure a 50:50 split between men and women in government jobs
Amid reports that former foreign secretary David Miliband (above, right, in 2010) is being lined up to return to the role, possibly with his brother Ed as Chancellor, one female minister complained that Burnham could not have 'more Milibands than women' in the top posts
But Mrs Badenoch told them to pipe down and get chosen on merit instead of retreating into 'more of the failed identity politics that is holding back our country'
A letter written by the Women's Parliamentary Labour Party and seen by the BBC has called on Mr Burnham to ensure a 50:50 split between men and women in government jobs after he succeeds Sir Keir Starmer.
'We are asking you to demonstrate this change from day one and address the toxicity and misogyny within our own party and government,' it said.
Labour has never had a female leader, while the Conservatives have had three, and Mrs Badenoch urged the government to follow its meritocratic example.
'If you run a meritocracy, then you do not have to worry about jobs for the boys,' she wrote.
'Every woman who is a Conservative MP, every woman who has ever won the leadership, has had to fight to get where she is.
'By contrast, Labour women are demanding guarantees from Burnham. But the truth is he doesn't have to give any guarantees.
'If none of Labour's women are prepared to get their hands dirty and challenge him for the leadership, their demands are toothless.'
'In fact, it's quite revealing that the women's parliamentary Labour Party has written to Burnham asking him to commit himself to at least 50 per cent female ministers.
'This has nothing to do with meritocracy. It is yet more of the failed identity politics that is holding back our country.'
