Federal Judge Bars ICE Courthouse Arrests Nationwide And Limits Extended Detention
U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts on Tuesday, June 23, 2026, issued a 71-page ruling that bars ICE from making immigration arrests inside immigration courts nationwide and limits extended short-term detention.[1]
Pitts found the 2025 courthouse-arrest policies "arbitrary and capricious" under the Administrative Procedure Act and overturned the ICE and EOIR rules.[2] He wrote that officials failed to grapple with the chilling effect that arrests have on noncitizens' willingness to attend court and rejected a change that would have extended short-term holding limits beyond a 12-hour cap.[3]
On April 27, 2021, the Biden administration issued a memorandum limiting civil immigration enforcement actions at courthouses to narrow exceptions. The Trump administration rescinded that guidance on January 20, 2025, and ICE followed with new guidance and a 2025 waiver allowing detainees to be held in short-term cells for up to 72 hours, a shift that produced a sharp rise in courthouse arrests.[4]
News accounts described the decision as the second recent judicial rebuke of courthouse arrests, expanding earlier May limits in New York to a nationwide prohibition.[3] At the same time, mainstream coverage noted courts recently allowed the administration to pursue expanded expedited deportations, a development that could blunt the practical impact of the courthouse ban.[5]
DHS General Counsel James Percival denounced the ruling on X as "naked judicial activism in service of an anti-American, open borders agenda." Los Angeles Times Observers noted the decision fits a pattern of judicial scrutiny by Pitts, a Biden-nominated judge who has previously blocked ICE initiatives and ordered changes at ICE facilities.[4]
The mainstream summary does not mention the staggering backlog in the U.S. immigration court system, which stood at 3.38 million active pending cases as of December 2025. This context underscores the potential impact of Judge Pitts' ruling on access to justice for noncitizens, especially given the chilling effect that courthouse arrests have on their willingness to attend hearings. The summary also downplays the significance of the ruling as part of a broader trend of judicial scrutiny against ICE policies, particularly those enacted under the Trump administration, which have been characterized as arbitrary and capricious by observers on social media. This perspective highlights the ongoing tensions in immigration enforcement and the legal landscape surrounding it, framing the ruling not just as a singular event but as part of a larger struggle over executive power and judicial oversight in immigration matters.
While the mainstream account mentions the denouncement from DHS General Counsel James Percival, it does not convey the sentiments expressed on social media, where some commentators likened the ruling to a "civil war" over immigration policy. This framing indicates a deeper societal divide regarding immigration enforcement, suggesting that the implications of the ruling extend beyond legal boundaries into the realm of public sentiment and political conflict. Additionally, the analysis of the erosion of separation of powers in immigration enforcement, as discussed in a recent Harvard Law Review essay, provides a critical lens through which to view these developments, indicating that the ruling may be part of a larger narrative about the balance of power in U.S. governance.
Show source details & analysis (6 sources)
📊 Relevant Data
As of December 2025, the U.S. immigration court system had 3.38 million active pending cases.
News from TRAC — Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC)
📌 Key Facts
- On Tuesday, June 23, 2026, U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts issued a 71-page ruling that bars ICE from making immigration arrests inside immigration courts nationwide (U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts).
- Pitts found the 2025 courthouse-arrest policies 'arbitrary and capricious' under the Administrative Procedure Act because the agency failed to grapple with the chilling effect on noncitizens' attendance at court and did not rationally explain removing earlier limits (Administrative Procedure Act).
- The opinion vacated the 2025 ICE and EOIR policies and rejected an agency change that would have extended short-term holding limits (from a 12-hour cap to 72 hours), with Pitts faulting officials for holding people beyond a 12-hour cap (vacated the 2025 ICE and EOIR policies).
- The plaintiffs were a group of asylum seekers challenging both the courthouse-arrest rule and the extended holding-facility limits, and the ruling specifically targets arrests inside immigration courts rather than more general courthouse settings (a group of asylum seekers).
- DHS General Counsel James Percival publicly denounced the ruling on X as 'naked judicial activism in service of an anti-American, open borders agenda,' arguing noncitizens ordered removed should be taken into custody like criminal defendants (James Percival).
- News accounts emphasize this decision as the second recent judicial setback for courthouse arrests — expanding earlier May restrictions in New York to a national ban — and note it arrives as courts also allowed the administration to pursue expanded expedited deportations, which could blunt the impact of the courthouse limitation (expedited deportations).
- Observers note a pattern of scrutiny by Pitts — a Biden-nominated judge who has previously blocked an ICE rearrest initiative and ordered changes at an ICE detention facility — signaling continued judicial oversight of ICE practices (Judge Pitts).
📰 Source Timeline (6)
Follow how coverage of this story developed over time
- CBS packages Judge P. Casey Pitts's June 23, 2026 ruling blocking immigration arrests at courthouses with the D.C. Circuit expedited-removal decision as part of a broader narrative on shifting Trump deportation powers.
- The segment highlights that while courthouse arrests are now barred nationwide, the administration has simultaneously received a green light to expand expedited deportations, potentially offsetting the courthouse limitation.
- The Fox News article confirms the ruling was issued in a 71-page decision on Tuesday, June 23, 2026, by U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts, nominated by President Joe Biden.
- It specifies that plaintiffs were a group of asylum seekers challenging ICE's 2025 courthouse-arrest policies and a separate policy extending short-term holding-facility limits from 12 to 72 hours.
- The article emphasizes that Pitts vacated the 2025 ICE and EOIR policies under the Administrative Procedure Act rather than issuing a nationwide injunction, and explains that vacatur removes the policies themselves.
- The piece adds that ICE had spent months publicly defending the 2025 policy as covering immigration courts before later internally asserting it did not apply there, a discrepancy Pitts highlighted as undermining the rulemaking.
- Fox notes this is part of a pattern in which Judge Pitts has previously blocked an ICE initiative to rearrest migrants and ordered changes at a San Francisco ICE detention facility over crowding and conditions.
- On Tuesday, June 23, 2026, U.S. District Judge Casey Pitts issued a nationwide order barring federal immigration arrests at immigration courts, invalidating the Trump administration’s policy change.
- Pitts held that the administration’s reversal of long-standing limits on courthouse arrests violated the Administrative Procedure Act because it stemmed from a 'complete lack of decision-making' and failed to consider the chilling effect on court attendance.
- DHS General Counsel James Percival publicly criticized the ruling online, calling it 'naked judicial activism' and arguing that noncitizens ordered removed by immigration judges should be taken into custody like criminal defendants.
- The article emphasizes that this ruling is the second recent setback for courthouse arrests, expanding earlier May restrictions in New York to a nationwide prohibition.
- Pitts also faulted the administration for holding people in nearby cells beyond a 12-hour cap at immigration facilities, reinforcing the detention portion of the injunction.
- On Tuesday, June 23, 2026, Judge P. Casey Pitts of the Northern District of California issued the 71-page ruling that bans ICE from making arrests inside immigration courts nationwide.
- Pitts held that the 2025 courthouse-arrest policies were 'arbitrary and capricious' in part because they failed to address ICE’s own prior recognition that courthouse arrests have a chilling effect on noncitizens’ attendance at court proceedings.
- The ruling specifically targets ICE arrests inside immigration courts, as opposed to more general references to courthouses, and ties the nationwide injunction to that immigration-court context.
- DHS General Counsel James Percival reacted on X by calling the ruling 'naked judicial activism in service of an anti-American, open borders agenda' and argued that noncitizens ordered removed should be taken into custody just as criminal defendants are after sentencing.
- Former Trump-era Justice Department official Gene Hamilton criticized the decision publicly, saying 'ICE can’t arrest illegal aliens at immigration court?' and predicting it 'won’t last on appeal.'
- The opinion notes that ICE had previously acknowledged concerns that courthouse arrests depress attendance rates, and Pitts faulted the agency for not grappling with that issue when reversing its 2021 guidance.
- On Tuesday, June 23, 2026, U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts issued a 71-page ruling finding ICE's 2025 courthouse-arrest policies 'arbitrary and capricious' and emphasizing their chilling effect on noncitizens' attendance at court proceedings.
- Pitts wrote that merely extending existing 2025 courthouse-arrest policies to cover immigration courthouses would not cure their 'fatal defects' because they fail to grapple with the chilling effect and do not rationally explain removing earlier limits.
- The article underscores that the blocked policy involved ICE detaining migrants in immigration courthouse hallways nationwide, sometimes immediately after they pled their cases.
- DHS General Counsel James Percival publicly criticized this specific ruling on X, calling it 'naked judicial activism in service of an anti-American, open borders agenda.'