A federal judge has barred the government from making arrests at immigration courts, a practice that took hold shortly after President Donald Trump took office last year. The latest decision invalidated the policy nationwide, meaning immigration practitioners across all jurisdictions must now advise clients that courthouse arrests are no longer permitted under this rule.
What changed
U.S. District Judge Casey Pitts of San Francisco ruled that the Trump administration’s reversal of long-standing policy against arrests at immigration court resulted “not from merely unreasoned decision-making but a complete lack of decision-making.” Pitts invoked the Administrative Procedure Act, a 1946 law that requires federal agencies to justify their actions, writing that the law “demands that an agency at least provide sound reasons for following its chosen course.”
The judge found that authorities failed to address the “chilling effect” of arrests on whether people attend court hearings. After Trump took office, hearings across the country often ended with cases being dismissed by the government, setting the stage for plainclothes agents to make arrests in hallways in coordination with attorneys from the Department of Homeland Security. Pitts faulted the administration for carrying out the arrests and for holding people in nearby cells for longer than a prescribed 12-hour limit.
This ruling is the second setback for courthouse arrests since May when a federal judge in New York barred them at immigration courts.
Why it matters
For immigration practitioners, this ruling fundamentally changes how you advise clients before immigration court appearances. The judge’s concern about the “chilling effect” of arrests on attendance reflects a core protection: clients can now attend their hearings with the assurance that they will not be arrested inside the courthouse or immediately outside it.
Practically, this protects both represented and unrepresented individuals who show up for court-ordered appearances. It removes the strategic incentive for the government to dismiss cases at hearing in order to execute arrests in hallways, which had become a reported practice under the prior policy.
The nationwide scope of the ruling is critical. Unlike the May New York decision, Pitts’s order applies across all immigration courts, meaning you can advise clients in any district that this protection is in effect.
Way forward
- Advise clients that courthouse arrests are barred. When preparing clients for immigration court, make clear that arrests inside the courthouse and during the proceeding are no longer permitted under this ruling.
- Document the ruling date in your file. Cite Judge Pitts’s decision (currently pending full citation) if the government attempts to execute an arrest at or immediately outside the courthouse.
- Monitor for appeals. The U.S. Homeland Security Department’s general counsel has criticized the ruling as an exercise in judicial overreach, signaling that DHS may appeal. Watch for circuit-level developments that could affect this protection.
- Consider the impact on case strategy. With courthouse arrests barred, the incentive structure for both the government and the client changes. Evaluate whether this affects your advice on whether to attend a hearing or how to structure your client’s presentation.
Disclaimer
This article is provided for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. We are a software company, not a law firm. You should consult with a licensed immigration attorney before relying on this information for any specific case or situation. Immigration law and policy change frequently without notice. You should always verify current rules and guidance against the primary sources linked above and with the USCIS, DOS, EOIR, and other relevant agencies before advising clients or making filing decisions.