A federal judge in California's Northern District struck down the Trump administration's policies allowing immigration agents to arrest noncitizens at courthouses nationwide, ruling Tuesday that Immigration and Customs Enforcement acted in an "arbitrary and capricious" manner when it expanded enforcement at sensitive locations.

U.S. District Judge Casey Pitts found that ICE and another government agency displayed a "complete lack of decisionmaking" when reversing longstanding guidance that had limited immigration enforcement in or near courthouses. The ruling marks a significant setback for the administration's aggressive approach to interior enforcement.

The Policy at Issue

Last year, ICE began detaining migrants in courthouse hallways across the country, sometimes moments after they had appeared before immigration judges to plead their cases. The Trump administration had rescinded Biden era guidance that restricted such arrests, arguing the previous policy hampered the ability of immigration agents to apprehend individuals with removal orders.

Immigrant advocacy groups challenged the policy change, arguing that courthouse arrests deterred noncitizens from appearing for their hearings, attending court as witnesses, or pursuing legal remedies. Several state attorneys general joined the litigation, contending that the federal enforcement actions interfered with their court systems.

Judge's Reasoning

Judge Pitts found that ICE failed to adequately explain its rationale for the policy change and did not properly consider the impact on courthouse operations and access to justice. The ruling also vacated a related policy expanding the duration for which noncitizens can be held in short term detention facilities.

The decision applies nationwide, meaning ICE agents must revert to the more restrictive approach that existed under previous administrations while the litigation continues. The government is expected to appeal the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Administration Response

Trump officials had defended the courthouse arrest policy as a common sense enforcement tool, noting that courthouses are often the only locations where immigration authorities can reliably locate individuals who have failed to comply with removal orders. The administration argued that limiting enforcement to certain areas created de facto sanctuaries.

The ruling follows other legal setbacks for the administration's immigration enforcement priorities, though courts have also handed the White House significant victories in related cases. The patchwork of rulings has created uncertainty about which policies remain in effect across different jurisdictions.

What Comes Next

Appeals of the ruling are expected to move quickly, given the high stakes and ongoing litigation over similar immigration policies. The case could ultimately reach the Supreme Court if lower courts produce conflicting rulings or if the administration seeks emergency relief.

For now, the decision provides relief to immigrant communities and their advocates who had argued that courthouse arrests undermined the integrity of the legal system and discouraged cooperation with law enforcement.