Your support helps us tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to big tech, The Independent is where the stories unfold. Whether we’re investigating the finances of Elon Musk’s pro-Trump PAC or producing The A Word, a new documentary highlighting American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse the facts from the message.
At such a critical moment in American history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to continue sending journalists to uncover stories on both sides of the aisle.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the political spectrum. Unlike many other reputable news organizations, we do not impose a paywall that restricts access to our reporting or analysis. We believe that quality journalism should be accessible to all and funded by those who can afford to contribute.
Your support makes all the difference.
read more
A federal judge ruled on Tuesday to prohibit arrests within immigration court, effectively halting a practice that emerged shortly after President Donald Trump took office last year.
U.S. District Judge Casey Pitts, based in San Francisco, criticized the Trump administration’s departure from established immigration policies, stating that the changes stemmed from a total absence of rational decision-making. He highlighted the substantial “chilling effect” that arrests impose on individuals attending court hearings.
Judge Pitts referenced the Administrative Procedure Act, a 1946 statute that mandates federal agencies to justify their actions, stating, “For 80 years, Congress has instructed federal agencies to exercise caution before taking action.” He emphasized that while an agency’s chosen path may not align with judicial preferences, it is still necessary for that agency to provide valid reasoning for its decisions.
This ruling represents the second defeat for the practice of court arrests, following a May decision by a federal judge in New York that banned such arrests, albeit only within the state. The latest ruling extends this ban nationwide, invalidating the previous policy throughout the country.
James Percival, the general counsel for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, decried the decision as a form of judicial overreach. He argued that just as defendants are detained upon sentencing, individuals ordered for deportation by an immigration judge should face a similar fate. His comments denounced the ruling as a manifestation of “naked judicial activism” aimed at anti-American, open-border policies.
Since the onset of the Trump administration, court hearings have frequently ended with government officials dismissing cases, setting the stage for plainclothes agents from the Department of Homeland Security to make arrests in courthouses.
Judge Pitts, appointed by President Joe Biden, also criticized the current administration for conducting arrests and holding individuals in nearby cells longer than the legally mandated 12-hour limit, indicating a lack of regard for established protocols.
