A federal judge in California delivered a significant blow to the Trump administration's immigration policies this Tuesday by annulling nationwide ICE directives that permitted widespread arrests of migrants within immigration courts.
Judge P. Casey Pitts of the Northern District of California District Court issued the ruling as part of the class action Carmen Aracely Pablo Sequen et al. v. Sergio Albarran et al., determining that ICE and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) acted in an "arbitrary and capricious" manner by implementing new policies without providing a reasoned justification or considering their negative impacts.
"For 80 years, Congress has mandated that federal agencies think before they act," Pitts wrote in the complete text of the ruling. "This instruction does not demand that an agency make the decision that a reviewing court would prefer, but it does require offering solid reasons for the chosen course of action," he added.
The decision immediately and nationally voids three key policies: the interim directive ICE 11072.3, issued on January 21, 2025; the final directive ICE 11072.4, from May 27, 2025; and the EOIR OPPM 25-06 memorandum, from January 28, 2025, which revoked previous protections against arrests in immigration court spaces.
The ruling also nullified the "Nationwide Hold Room Waiver," an ICE memorandum from June 24, 2025, that extended the short-term cell detention limit from 12 to 72 hours, a measure adopted by the government due to lack of space in permanent detention centers following increased immigration enforcement operations.
Immigration attorneys who testified in the case described a "chilling effect" caused by the presence of ICE agents in courts, which led to a dramatic drop in migrants attending their own hearings, directly affecting their access to due process.
The ruling further notes that after the new policies took effect in 2025, civil arrests of immigrants in migration courts increased significantly. Data cited in the decision indicate that in the San Francisco area, detentions rose from being rare to nearly 50 per week.
A former immigration judge who testified in the case reported a sharp decline in hearing attendance following the increase in arrests, a situation the court deemed relevant in assessing the impact of the measures.
The class action was filed in September 2025 by a coalition including the ACLU of Northern California, CARECEN, and the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights. Judge Pitts had already blocked arrests in the San Francisco area in December 2025; Tuesday's ruling voids those policies across the United States.
The decision contrasts with a prior ruling from a Manhattan judge who decided oppositely in a similar case during the fall of 2025, potentially setting up a circuit split that could bring the matter before the Supreme Court.
For at least a decade before 2025, ICE had limited civil arrests in or near courthouses to high-priority categories: terrorism suspects, convicted felons, or gang members. In 2021, the agency explicitly extended those restrictions to immigration courts, acknowledging that arrests in those spaces could "paralyze court access and hinder the fair administration of justice."
The judge emphasized that neither ICE nor EOIR adequately explained why they abandoned those previous findings or addressed the risks both agencies had recognized for years regarding access to justice, safety within courts, and migrant attendance at their hearings.
The Trump administration dismantled these protections from its early days in power. With this decision, the court effectively restores the restrictions that for years limited civil arrests in courts to exceptional circumstances.
Key Questions About Federal Court's Decision on ICE Arrests
What was the main reason for the court's decision?
The court ruled that ICE and EOIR acted in an "arbitrary and capricious" manner by implementing new policies without providing a reasoned justification or considering their negative impacts.
How does the decision affect ICE's policies?
The decision voids several key ICE directives nationwide, restoring restrictions that limit civil arrests in courts to exceptional circumstances.
What impact did ICE's presence have in immigration courts?
The presence of ICE agents in courts created a "chilling effect," leading to a significant decrease in migrants attending their hearings and impacting their due process rights.