A federal judge in California issued a nationwide block against the Trump administration’s policy of making arrests at immigration courts, effectively restoring prior guidance that had restricted ICE enforcement in courthouse settings. The ruling has immediate impact on how you advise clients attending hearings and how courts operate nationally.
What changed
Immigration and Customs Enforcement had begun detaining migrants in courthouse hallways across the country, sometimes moments after pleading their cases, raising alarm among attorneys and advocates who said the practice turned immigration courts from places of due process into zones of fear. The Trump administration had rescinded long-held guidance that had limited immigration enforcement in or near courthouses.
Judge P. Casey Pitts issued a 71-page ruling finding the policy “arbitrary and capricious,” acknowledging the “chilling effect” of ICE’s courthouse arrest policy and finding it fails to address how such arrests prevent noncitizens from attending court proceedings.
Why it matters
This ruling restores your ability to assure clients they can attend immigration hearings without heightened risk of arrest—a foundational protection for access to justice. The court’s emphasis on the “chilling effect” recognizes what practitioners have long documented: clients were skipping hearings entirely to avoid arrest, undermining their own defenses.
The injunction is nationwide and applies across all immigration courts. It blocks the 2025 courthouse-arrest policy retroactively and prospectively, meaning ICE cannot continue detaining people in courthouse hallways. For clients with pending cases—whether asylum, cancellation, removal defense, or any other proceeding—this order removes a major barrier to in-person appearance and testimony.
The court’s reasoning also matters for future litigation: Judge Pitts found the policy lacked rational explanation for why ICE removed its earlier restrictions and did not extend new courthouse-safety protections to immigration courts. This sets a precedent if the government attempts similar policies.
Way forward
-
Advise clients that courthouse arrest risk has decreased significantly. While ICE retains enforcement authority elsewhere, the injunction blocks detention in immigration court facilities. This may restore clients’ willingness to appear in person for hearings, depositions, and witness testimony.
-
Document the change in your case files. Note the June 23, 2026 injunction and cite it when requesting in-person appearances, especially for clients who previously cited arrest fear. This protects your file if questions arise about client no-shows or in absentia proceedings.
-
Consider reopening or staying proceedings. If clients missed hearings or remained in absentia during the period when courthouse arrests were occurring, consult with your supervisor and the immigration judge about whether the changed legal landscape warrants motion to reopen or reconsider.
-
Monitor for appeals. The Trump administration may appeal this decision. Stay alert to the federal docket (likely 9th Circuit) for any emergency motions or notices of appeal that could affect the injunction’s scope.
Disclaimer
This article is not legal advice. Fola.com is a software company that explains immigration policy, not a law firm. You must verify this information against the primary source linked above and consult a licensed immigration attorney about your specific case. Federal court decisions and policies can change without notice; check the federal docket and relevant case law before relying on this summary in any proceeding.