A U.S. district judge in San Francisco barred the federal government from making arrests at immigration courts, ordering an end to a practice that took hold shortly after President Donald Trump took office. The ruling invalidates the Trump administration’s 2025 reversal of a decades-old policy protecting immigration courthouses as sensitive locations and has nationwide effect.
What changed
U.S. District Judge Casey Pitts found 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”. Judge Pitts noted that for 80 years Congress has commanded federal agencies to think before they act through the Administrative Procedure Act, a 1946 law that requires federal agencies to justify its actions.
After the Trump administration took office in January 2025, ICE and the Executive Office for Immigration Review revised their policies to permit arrests of noncitizens at courthouses where they are required to appear for hearings and immigration check-ins. The ICE arrests outside courthouses represented a departure from the decades-long bipartisan agreement that courthouses were sensitive locations.
The case, Pablo Sequen v. Albarran, was a federal class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of noncitizens who were arrested by ICE while attending routine hearings at immigration courts.
Why it matters
The ruling has two immediate consequences for your practice:
Court appearances are now protected. Judge Pitts wrote that noncitizens in removal proceedings previously faced a Hobson’s choice: they could appear in immigration court and face likely arrest and detention, or choose not to appear and forego their opportunity to pursue their claims for asylum or other relief from removal. That choice is now resolved in clients’ favor.
The in absentia removal wave may slow. Monthly removal in absentia orders more than doubled in 2026, to 4,177 from fewer than 1,600 in 2024. With courthouse arrests now prohibited, immigration judges should see higher appearance rates and fewer automatic removals.
Authorities had failed to address the “chilling effect” of arrests on whether people attend court hearings — a failure that Pitts found violated the Administrative Procedure Act’s requirement that agencies consider the foreseeable consequences of their policy shifts.
Way forward
-
Advise clients without the courthouse-arrest warning. Clients can now be told that attending their immigration hearing is safe and will not result in courthouse arrest. Document this change in your case file for audit purposes.
-
Challenge prior in absentia orders. If clients were ordered removed in absentia during the 2025–2026 period when courthouse arrests were permitted, consider motions to reopen under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) or § 1003.23, arguing the absence was caused by the policy’s chilling effect and constituted “exceptional circumstances.”
-
Monitor for stay pending appeal. The DHS General Counsel has signaled strong opposition. Watch for an emergency motion for a stay pending appeal, which could disrupt the ruling pending further litigation.
-
Verify the ruling applies to your jurisdiction. Judge Pitts’s initial order applied to the San Francisco region, which includes Concord and Sacramento courts, as well as Central California, Hawai’i, Guam and Saipan. Consult the full opinion for any scope limitations in your jurisdiction.
Disclaimer
This article is not legal advice. Fola is a software platform, not a law firm. Immigration law is complex and fact-dependent; consult a licensed immigration attorney before relying on any summary of judicial decisions. Verify all information against the primary court opinion linked above. Court orders and policy may be stayed, reversed, or modified without notice. This article reflects the state of law as of the publication date only.