Federal Judge Blocks ICE Policy on Court Arrests
A federal judge has put a halt to new policies from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that permitted the arrest of noncitizens within immigration courts. The ruling comes as the judge asserted that the agency failed to adhere to the proper rule-making processes.
In a comprehensive 71-page decision, U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts, appointed by President Joe Biden, criticized the federal government for its “total lack of decision-making.” He noted that the Administrative Procedure Act mandates federal agencies to justify their actions, which he found both the Justice Department and ICE failed to do.
Judge Pitts highlighted a gap between ICE’s stated policy for court arrests in 2025 and its actual implementation, describing it as a “complete lack of decision-making.” His observations lead to significant implications for how ICE conducts its enforcement actions within immigration courts.
Plaintiffs’ attorney Nisha Kashyap, who serves as program director at the San Francisco Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, characterized the ruling as “very important.” She criticized prior policies enacted during the Trump administration, stating that they transformed immigration courts into “hunting grounds” for arrests, an approach the judge’s order now overturns.
Historically, from 2014 to 2021, ICE policy restricted courtroom arrests to high-risk noncitizens—those with criminal convictions or suspected ties to terrorism. Following a directive from President Trump in 2025, ICE revised its strategy to allow civil enforcement actions based on a belief that an individual would appear in court, which effectively expanded the agency’s reach.
Carmen Aracely Pablo Sequen, a Guatemalan asylum seeker, challenged this policy after being arrested while leaving a routine court hearing in San Francisco. She has since also raised concerns about the conditions of confinement at ICE’s San Francisco facility. Other plaintiffs joined her case, also seeking class action status, which Judge Pitts granted in his latest ruling.
Judge Pitts not only denied a motion to dismiss the case but also established a temporary restraining order to secure Pablo Sequen’s immediate release. He later ruled in favor of the plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion, declaring both the “Court Arrest Policy” and the waiver of the 12-hour detention limit invalid. He emphasized that the new policies represented an “unreasonable departure” from earlier guidelines, lacking any clear rationale for the shift in enforcement.
Despite the government’s arguments defending the policy as a means of enhancing public safety, Judge Pitts found them unconvincing. He pointed out that ICE’s actions involved arresting individuals for immigration violations they were attending court to address, rather than for unrelated criminal actions. This discrepancy, coupled with insufficient justification for asserting public safety benefits, weighed heavily in the judge’s decision.
The ongoing case involving Pablo Sequen will continue to examine additional constitutional claims related to detention conditions at ICE facilities. Similar legal challenges have emerged in various jurisdictions, raising concerns about ICE practices nationwide.
