U.S. District Judge Casey Pitts of San Francisco ruled in a 71-page opinion that the Trump administration’s rescission of a long-standing policy against arrests at immigration courts and another policy that allowed Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to hold detainees for alleged immigration violations for more than 12 hours were arbitrary and violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). This decision materially constrains ICE enforcement operations at immigration court facilities and affects how practitioners manage detained clients.
What changed
Judge Pitts found that ICE’s rescission of the policy against arrests at immigration courts and the policy allowing detention beyond 12 hours for immigration violations were arbitrary and violated the Administrative Procedure Act. Judge Pitts argued that “ICE is not arresting individuals who appear for criminal or civil violations ‘unrelated’ to the arrest but instead arresting noncitizens based on the very immigration offenses for which the noncitizens are appearing in immigration court.”
The court found the government failed to provide reasoned explanation for abandoning the prior restraint on such arrests and detentions. Judge Pitts noted that the Administrative Procedure Act “demands that an agency at least provide sound reasons for following its chosen course.”
Why it matters
This decision immediately reinstates protections that practitioners and immigration courts have relied on for 80 years. Clients appearing for immigration court proceedings can no longer be arrested by ICE for the immigration offense that is the subject of their hearing—a protection that was critical to ensuring people could meaningfully access the immigration court system without fear of immediate apprehension at the courthouse.
The 12-hour detention limit is equally important: it means ICE cannot hold an individual indefinitely after an immigration court appearance on the mere allegation of an immigration violation. This gives practitioners a hard deadline for locating and assisting detained clients.
Immigration judges and court staff will also see immediate operational relief—immigration court proceedings can continue without the disruption caused by mid-hearing arrests and the ripple effects on the docket and evidence.
Way forward
- If you represent a detained client, verify that any arrest or detention occurred after the June 24, 2026 ruling date; prior detentions may support habeas or due-process motions.
- If you have a hearing scheduled, brief your client that they should not be arrested or apprehended by ICE during their appearance, and provide them with a copy of the decision or a brief summary to carry to court.
- If ICE violates this order, document the date, time, circumstances, and location of any arrest or unlawful detention and preserve all evidence for potential civil rights claims.
- Follow the proceedings: The government will likely appeal, so monitor the Ninth Circuit docket to understand whether this protection remains in effect while litigation continues.
Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The analysis reflects the source material as of the publication date. Immigration policy and court decisions can change without notice, and the government may seek stay or reversal on appeal. You must verify this information against the primary court opinion and consult with a licensed immigration attorney before relying on it in any client matter or proceeding.