A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from carrying out arrests of migrants at immigration courts across the United States, ruling that the policy was implemented unlawfully.
In a 71-page decision issued on Tuesday, Judge P. Casey Pitts of the Northern District of California found that the policies adopted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The judge issued a nationwide injunction, preventing immigration authorities from continuing the practice.
Judge Pitts stated that both agencies failed to provide reasonable explanations for their actions. He concluded that the policies were “arbitrary and capricious,” a legal standard used when government agencies fail to justify policy decisions properly under federal law.
The ruling comes after growing criticism from immigration advocates, attorneys, and local lawmakers. Across the country, including in New York City, migrants were reportedly arrested at immigration courts shortly after their deportation cases were dismissed. Advocacy groups argued that the practice undermined due process and discouraged migrants from attending court hearings.
Immigration court proceedings are used to determine whether a migrant can remain in the United States or should be removed. In many cases, judges dismiss deportation proceedings to allow individuals to seek legal protection, including asylum. Immigration lawyers argued that the administration had been using these dismissals as an opportunity to detain migrants and place them into expedited removal proceedings without giving them a full chance to present their cases.
The Trump administration defended the policy by arguing that it was authorized under an executive order issued by President Donald Trump. However, Judge Pitts rejected that argument. He wrote that there was no clear connection between the government’s stated reasons for the policy and the actual increase in arrests at immigration courthouses.
The judge also referenced a separate case in New York, where the Department of Justice admitted that it had mistakenly relied on an ICE memorandum to justify arrests at immigration courts. According to court filings, the memo did not apply to civil immigration enforcement actions conducted in or near immigration courthouses.
In response to the ruling, James Percival, general counsel for the Department of Homeland Security, criticized the decision and described it as “anti-American.” Writing on social media platform X, he argued that migrants ordered removed by immigration judges should be taken into custody in the same way criminal defendants are detained after sentencing. He accused the court of engaging in judicial activism and supporting an open-border agenda.
The ruling marks a significant setback for the administration’s immigration enforcement efforts and is likely to fuel further legal and political debate over how immigration laws should be enforced in the United States. The case also highlights ongoing tensions between federal courts and immigration authorities over the limits of executive power in immigration policy.