Federal judge bars immigration arrests at U.S. courthouses nationwide

Nationwide order

A federal judge in California has blocked immigration arrests at courthouses nationwide, a major setback for the Trump administration’s enforcement approach and a ruling that advocates say could make it safer for people to attend immigration hearings.

U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts issued the order on June 23, 2026, according to reporting on the decision. The ruling bars Immigration and Customs Enforcement from carrying out arrests at or around immigration courts across the country unless a higher court changes the order.

The case challenges a policy shift that had allowed courthouse arrests after earlier restrictions treated courts as sensitive locations for immigration enforcement. Pitts found the government had not given a reasoned explanation for changing course under the Administrative Procedure Act.

He also said the administration did not adequately account for the chilling effect the practice could have on attendance at immigration hearings. That issue was central to the case because missed hearings can lead to removal orders.

The order goes beyond the narrower relief issued in an earlier New York case. That May 2026 ruling was limited to New York; the California order applies nationwide.

Why the judge ruled

The court’s reasoning focused on two related problems: the government’s failure to justify the policy change and its failure to address the likely impact on people appearing in court.

Reporting on the decision says the judge criticized the administration for not offering a lawful, reasoned explanation for reversing prior restrictions. The ruling also faulted the government for not dealing with evidence that courthouse arrests could keep immigrants away from required hearings.

That concern mattered because immigration proceedings can move forward without the respondent present, and missed appearances can trigger orders of removal. Advocates argued that courthouse arrests gave people another reason to avoid court altogether.

The judge also addressed the use of nearby holding cells beyond a 12-hour limit referenced in reporting on the decision. That detail was part of the broader criticism of how the policy was being carried out.

The result is a court order that does not merely narrow the practice in one jurisdiction. It blocks it nationwide, reflecting the court’s view that a limited remedy would not solve the underlying problem cleanly.

From New York to California

The nationwide order builds on a case that had already produced a smaller block in New York. In May 2026, a federal judge there limited immigration-court arrest restrictions to that state.

The California case expanded that earlier result. Reporting on the new ruling says the broader relief was necessary because the issue was not confined to one state or one courthouse.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported that the court’s reasoning showed why a narrower fix would not work well. AP likewise described the ruling as a nationwide setback for the administration.

That chronology matters because it shows the dispute has been developing through multiple federal courts, with the California decision now setting the broadest boundary yet on courthouse arrests.

Who is affected

The case was brought by immigrant plaintiffs and advocacy groups including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights. Reporting identified plaintiffs including Carmen Pablo Sequen and Ligia Garcia.

Their challenge reflected a broader concern that courthouse arrests deter people from attending hearings they are legally required to attend. If people stay away, they risk losing their cases by default.

The practical stakes are immediate for immigrants with pending cases. The ruling is meant to reduce the fear that appearing for a hearing could lead to arrest at the courthouse itself.

That does not end immigration enforcement, but it does limit one tactic that advocates said had undermined confidence in the court process. The court accepted that concern as part of its reasoning.

DHS response and next steps

Department of Homeland Security general counsel James Percival condemned the ruling as judicial overreach. He argued the administration should be able to detain people after an immigration judge orders removal.

That pushback frames the case as a broader fight over executive-branch immigration enforcement authority. DHS is defending the underlying arrest policy, while the court said the change still had to be justified under federal administrative law.

The administration can appeal the ruling and may seek an immediate stay pending appeal. If it does, the nationwide block could be tested quickly.

Another open question is how fast DHS would change field guidance, if at all. Courts may also need to clarify how the ruling interacts with any remaining local or procedural restrictions.

For now, the practical effect is that courthouse arrests are barred nationwide unless a higher court intervenes. Immigration advocates are likely to watch closely for compliance and for any attempt to narrow or suspend the order.

Broader context

The ruling is part of a wider legal fight over how aggressively immigration enforcement can be carried out around courthouses. Prior restrictions had treated courts as sensitive places, but those protections were rolled back under the Trump administration.

Advocates say the courthouse-arrest tactic discouraged attendance and increased the risk of default removal orders. The government’s position, as reflected in Percival’s criticism, is that arrest authority remains appropriate in cases where removal has already been ordered.

The June 23 order leaves that disagreement unresolved on the merits of immigration enforcement policy, but it sharply limits the government’s current approach. Any broader change will likely now come through appeal or further court action rather than immediate field practice.