A federal judge based in San Francisco has issued a ruling that halts Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from conducting civil arrests at immigration courthouses throughout Northern California. This decision, made on Wednesday, represents a significant challenge to the Trump administration’s controversial immigration enforcement practices.
Judge’s Ruling and Its Implications
In his order, Judge P. Casey Pitts articulated the dilemma faced by noncitizens in removal proceedings. He emphasized that these individuals face a “Hobson’s choice” when appearing in court: risk arrest and detention by ICE or forgo their chance to seek asylum or other forms of legal relief.
The ruling reinstates a pre-Trump era prohibition against ICE arrests at immigration courts. As a consequence, ICE and the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review are barred from waiting to apprehend asylum seekers during routine hearings.
Historical Context of Courthouse Arrests
Historically, ICE has limited arrests at sensitive locations, including schools and hospitals, to protect individuals from civil immigration enforcement actions. These protections originated under the Immigration and Naturalization Services decades ago and were observed by ICE following the 9/11 attacks. Although courts were added to this list under President Obama, the policy became lax during Trump’s presidency before being reinstated by President Biden.
Statistics and Trends
- Monthly removal orders in absentia have surged to over 4,177 this year, up from fewer than 1,600 in 2024.
- More than 50,000 asylum seekers have been ordered removed after not appearing in court since January 2023.
- This figure exceeds the total number removed in absentia over the previous five years combined.
Judge Pitts pointed out that the increase in courthouse arrests has likely discouraged individuals from attending their removal proceedings. This, he stated, could significantly undermine justice and fair administration in immigration courts.
Legal Challenges Ahead
The recent ruling positions the San Francisco case in direct conflict with other lawsuits aimed at limiting ICE’s activities in traditionally protected spaces. One case involved a Guatemalan asylum seeker, Yulisa Alvarado Ambrocio, who narrowly escaped detention due to her 11-month-old child being present in court.
In contrast, a recent Manhattan ruling favored ICE, setting the stage for potential circuit conflicts and a possible Supreme Court case concerning courthouse arrests.
Next Steps for ICE and the Justice Department
The ruling currently applies only within the San Francisco Area of Responsibility, which extends across Northern and Central California. The administration has indicated plans to appeal this decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, raising concerns about potential judicial shifts in immigration policy under Trump-appointed judges.
