SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration’s policy permitting broad immigration arrests at immigration courthouses, ruling that federal agencies failed to provide a legally sufficient justification for reversing longstanding restrictions on such enforcement actions, according to a court decision issued this week.
U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts of the Northern District of California on Tuesday vacated nationwide policies adopted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review that had expanded the use of courthouse arrests and allowed some detainees to be held in short-term facilities for longer periods.
The ruling represents a setback for President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement agenda, which had relied in part on arrests conducted at immigration courts after the administration rescinded earlier guidance limiting such actions. The policies had been implemented after Trump returned to office and were challenged by immigrant-rights groups and legal advocates.
In his decision, Pitts said the agencies acted in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner under the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law governing agency rulemaking. The judge wrote that officials failed to adequately explain why previous protections were removed and did not sufficiently address concerns that courthouse arrests could discourage people from attending immigration proceedings.
“For 80 years, Congress has commanded federal agencies to think before they act,” Pitts wrote in the opinion. He added that the law requires agencies to provide “sound reasons” for policy changes.
Under prior guidance, immigration arrests at courthouses were generally limited to circumstances involving national security concerns, imminent threats to public safety or similar exceptional situations. The Trump administration’s revised policies removed many of those restrictions, allowing broader enforcement activity at immigration courts.
The Department of Homeland Security criticized the ruling. James Percival, the department’s general counsel, described the decision as “naked judicial activism” in a statement posted on social media following the ruling.
Advocacy groups that brought the lawsuit welcomed the decision, arguing that arrests at immigration courts undermined confidence in the judicial process and deterred immigrants from appearing for hearings. Federal officials, meanwhile, have maintained that courthouse arrests are an important enforcement tool for identifying and detaining individuals who may be subject to removal proceedings.
As of Thursday, the administration had not publicly detailed whether it would appeal the ruling. The court order remains in effect nationwide while any further legal proceedings are considered, according to court records.
