Federal Judge Blocks Immigration Courthouse Arrests Nationwide in Trump Administration Setback

U.S. District Judge Casey Pitts of San Francisco issued a nationwide ruling on Tuesday barring the federal government from making arrests at immigration courts, effectively ending a practice that became widespread shortly after President Donald Trump took office in 2025. Judge Pitts, appointed by President Joe Biden, found that the Trump administration's reversal of the long-standing policy against courthouse arrests constituted "not merely unreasoned decision-making but a complete lack of decision-making." The judge emphasized that federal agencies are required under the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 to provide sound reasoning for policy changes, and that authorities failed to address the documented "chilling effect" that arrests have on individuals' willingness to attend court hearings.

The ruling represents the second major legal setback for the administration's courthouse arrest policy. A federal judge in New York issued a similar prohibition in May, though that order was limited to New York courts. The latest decision invalidates the policy across the entire country. Judge Pitts also faulted the administration for holding detainees in nearby holding cells for periods exceeding the prescribed 12-hour limit.

Under the Trump administration's practice, immigration court hearings across the country often concluded with the government dismissing cases, creating an opportunity for plainclothes federal agents to make arrests in courthouse hallways in coordination with Department of Homeland Security attorneys. James Percival, the DHS general counsel, criticized the ruling as judicial overreach, arguing that immigration judges' deportation orders should result in immediate custody just as criminal court sentences do. He characterized the decision as "naked judicial activism in service of an anti-American, open borders agenda." However, Judge Pitts' reasoning focused narrowly on the procedural requirement that agencies justify policy reversals through reasoned decision-making rather than on the merits of immigration enforcement itself.