Federal judge vacates Trump-era policy enabling ICE arrests at immigration courthouses nationwide

On June 23, 2026, U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts (Biden appointee) granted summary judgment in a class action brought by immigrants, vacating three ICE policies that permitted civil immigration arrests at or inside courthouses. The court found the policies arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, ordering nationwide relief. This is a final merits determination—not a preliminary injunction—and means the policies are set aside unless reversed on appeal. Judge Pitts explicitly noted the order does not preclude ICE from conducting civil enforcement at courthouses entirely; it reinstates the agency's pre-Trump-era policy that required warrants or exigent circumstances for such arrests, as reported by multiple outlets including Courthouse News and Law360. (Note: Before the Trump administration, ICE generally avoided courthouse arrests except with a warrant or in exigent circumstances; this ruling restores that earlier baseline, not a formal Obama administration policy.)

The ruling follows a separate May 2026 decision by U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel (George W. Bush appointee) in Manhattan, who similarly blocked ICE arrests at immigration courthouses in that jurisdiction. Judge Castel's order, also grounded in APA violations, reinforces the illegality of the administration's courthouse enforcement tactics. Notably, the bundle confirms that a separate case involving deported crime-victim survivors is being handled by Judge Andre Birotte Jr. in the Central District of California—that case (Immigration Center for Women and Children v. Noem) concerns policies affecting survivors of domestic violence and trafficking, not courthouse arrests. The distinction is important: while both cases challenge DHS overreach, the courthouse arrest rulings squarely address the integrity of immigration proceedings.

The decisions are a critical check on the administration's escalation of punitive enforcement under Border Czar Tom Homan. By barring ICE from arresting individuals inside immigration courts, the rulings protect the legal process—asylum seekers, witnesses, and respondents can appear without fear of immediate detention. The policy had already caused documented harm: skipped hearings, terrified witnesses, and attorneys reporting clients refusing to attend. Judge Pitts's summary judgment is a strong remedy, though the Department of Homeland Security may appeal. The rulings do not, however, address arrests in other courthouses (e.g., criminal or family court), leaving those contexts vulnerable to ongoing enforcement.