On June 23 of 2026, Federal Judge P. Casey Pitts banned a recent ICE practice: there can be no more arrests of participants at immigration courts nationwide. See Pablo Sequen v. Kaiser, No. 5:25-cv-06487-PCP (N.D. Cal.).
“. . . ICE and EOIR failed to provide reasoned explanations for their actions, the Court concludes that each of the challenged policies is arbitrary and capricious in contravention of the APA. The Court therefore grants plaintiffs’ motions for partial summary judgment and vacates the challenged policies in full.” Id.
“In both 2014 and 2015, ICE issued internal guidance stating that civil enforcement actions at or near courthouses would be undertaken only against noncitizens whom ICE had a heightened interest in detaining immediately because, for example, they were “suspected of terrorism or espionage,” had been convicted of crimes, “participated in organized criminal gangs,” or “otherwise pose[d] a serious risk to public safety.”2 In 2018, ICE issued a formal directive that again authorized “civil enforcement actions inside courthouses” against certain high-priority categories of noncitizens, like “gang members” and those “with criminal convictions.” The directive instructed that other noncitizens whom ICE encountered in courthouses would not be subject to arrest “absent special circumstances, such as where the individual poses a threat to public safety.” Id.
In 2021, ICE extended these restrictions to immigration courthouses as well. Such arressts were permitted only if there existed “a national security threat”; “an imminent risk of death, violence, or physical harm”; “hot pursuit” of a person who threatened public safety; “an immediate risk of destruction of [criminal] evidence”; or, subject to advance supervisory approval, if no “safe alternative location” existed for the arrest of “an individual who pose[d] a threat to public safety.” Id.
Obviously, the vast majority of future Americans being arrested at court did not pose a threat to anyone, and were only trying to comply with court orders to appear. “EOIR’s 2023 guidance explained that, in addition to having a “chilling effect,” allowing civil-enforcement actions in immigration courthouses “would disincentivize noncitizens from appearing for their hearings” and “may create safety risks for those who may be present” in courthouses, “including children.”10 The 2023 guidance also reasoned that limiting civil immigration arrests at immigration courthouses would “reinforce the separate and distinct roles of [the Department of Homeland Security],” including ICE, “and [EOIR].”11 To guard against these risks, EOIR permitted civil immigration arrests at or near its courthouses only in the exceptional circumstances. . .” listed in the paragraph above. Id.
In 2025, ICE reversed this command and began to arrest persons for civil infractions at courthouses (for example, visa overstay), ignoring the effect this action might have on the appearance of the persons the court wished to see. The government itself “conceded … [that] nothing in the record suggests that the arrests have targeted only noncitizens in high-priority groups.” Pablo Sequen VII, 814 F. Supp. 3d at 1020.
The practice was found to prevent migrants from accessing courthouses, thus impairing the administration of justice. If people are afraid of being arrested at court, they are most unlikely to seek legal relief there! The court could find no rational connection between the elements of public danger listed above and immigration court.
Because there was never a rational or legitimate reason behind them, “Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), the Court VACATES both the courthouse-arrest policies (i.e., ICE Policy No. 11072.3, ICE Policy No. 11072.4, and EOIR Operating Policies and Procedures Memorandum 25-06).” Id. (emphasis added).
What does this mean for me? By law, you should not be arrested for appearing in immigration court or for fingerprints, etc. if you are not a threat to public safety. That does not actually mean that ICE cannot arrest you if it can find you and you have overstayed or violated a visa or worked without authorization. It simply means that if that happens, your legal staff has a powerful argument to stand on.
This firm still recommends that you carry proof of marriage and USCIS filing (if any) with you at all times!