U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts of the Northern District of California has ruled that ICE’s policies violated the Administrative Procedure Act because federal agencies failed to adequately explain their decision to abandon earlier restrictions on courthouse arrests and detention practices, vacating the policies nationwide in a 71-page opinion.
What changed
The practice of arresting migrants at immigration courts expanded significantly after DHS updated its policy last year and allows ICE agents to take individuals into custody when they appear before immigration judges. Judge Pitts ruled in favor of the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and invalidated “courthouse-arrest policies and ICE’s 12-hour-detention waiver” under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Judge Pitts found that “ICE’s 2025 courthouse-arrest policies are devoid of rational explanation.” The core problem: the court found ICE and its partner agency failed to meet the basic standard that the Administrative Procedure Act requires agencies to “provide sound reasons for following [their] chosen course.”
The judge also addressed ICE’s detention practices. The ruling struck down a separate ICE policy that waived the agency’s long-standing 12-hour limit on detention in short-term holding facilities—a June 2025 waiver that allowed detainees to remain in holding facilities for up to 72 hours, and longer in exceptional circumstances.
Why it matters
For your clients: Judge Pitts sided with concerns that ICE failed to address the rationale behind earlier guidance that warned courthouse arrests could chill attendance at hearings and impede access to justice, noting that courthouse arrests surged after the policies took effect and a former immigration judge reported a “dramatic decline” in attendance at hearings. This decision significantly reduces the risk your client faces by appearing for a routine removal hearing.
For your practice: The decision is nationwide—not limited to one jurisdiction. The court blocked the policies nationwide, delivering a significant setback to the administration’s broader effort to ramp up immigration enforcement. This means the 2025 ICE courthouse-arrest policies are now unenforceable absent new agency action complying with Administrative Procedure Act requirements.
The government will likely appeal or attempt to promulgate new policies. The DOJ and ICE could now write up new policies, if they comply with the legal requirements Pitts set out. Stay alert to any notices of appeal or new policy memos from ICE or the Executive Office for Immigration Review.
Way forward
-
Advise clients on attendance. The immediate practical effect is that clients can now appear for immigration court hearings without the fear of ICE arrest that existed under the 2025 policies. This is particularly important for clients at early stages of removal (master calendar hearings) who were deterred from showing up.
-
Preserve the record. If a client was arrested at an immigration court in 2025 under the invalidated policies, document the details of that arrest. Similar class actions are pending in other jurisdictions; your client may have a claim for damages or injunctive relief.
-
Monitor for new policies. The government will likely appeal or file a motion for stay pending appeal. Subscribe to USCIS Policy Updates and DOJ press releases to track developments. If ICE issues a new courthouse-arrest policy, review it carefully against the Administrative Procedure Act standards the judge set out.
-
Attend hearings and advance your case. Use the breathing room to move your cases forward—file motions, build your record, and prepare for merits hearings without the distraction of enforcement fear.
Disclaimer
This article is published by Fola, a software company and not a law firm. This article is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Consult a licensed immigration attorney to discuss your specific situation. The immigration policy landscape changes rapidly; verify this information against the primary source documents linked above and confirm the current state of the law before relying on it in client advice or litigation strategy.