Key Takeaways
- A federal judge in San Francisco has barred Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review from making civil arrests at immigration courthouses in Northern California.
- The decision blocks ICE and the Department of Justice from lying in wait for asylum seekers and other noncitizens at routine hearings throughout the region.
- The ruling likely sets the San Francisco case on a collision course with other lawsuits seeking to curb ICE’s incursions into spaces previously considered off-limits.
- The decision only applies to ICE’s San Francisco Area of Responsibility, which encompasses all of Northern and Central California.
- The administration has announced its intention to appeal the decision to the 9th Circuit.
Introduction to the Ruling
A federal judge in San Francisco has made a significant decision regarding the Trump administration’s deportation tactics. On Christmas Eve, Judge P. Casey Pitts barred Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review from making civil arrests at immigration courthouses in Northern California. This decision is a major blow to the Trump administration’s efforts to increase deportations and is likely to have far-reaching implications for asylum seekers and other noncitizens in the region.
The Impact of Civil Arrests on Asylum Seekers
The judge’s decision was based on the fact that civil arrests at immigration courthouses can have a chilling effect on noncitizens’ attendance at removal proceedings. By lying in wait for asylum seekers and other noncitizens at routine hearings, ICE and the Department of Justice were effectively creating a "Hobson’s choice" for noncitizens, who were forced to choose between appearing in court and facing likely arrest and detention, or not appearing and forfeiting their opportunity to pursue their claims for asylum or other relief from removal. This situation was deemed unacceptable by the judge, who ruled that ICE and the Department of Justice had failed to consider the "costs" of their new policies, including the chilling effect on noncitizens’ participation in their removal proceedings.
The History of Courthouse Arrests
The policy prohibiting most courthouse arrests was first established decades ago under ICE’s predecessor agency, Immigration and Naturalization Services. This policy was continued by ICE when the agency was formed in the wake of the September 11 attacks. Courts were added to the list of "sensitive locations" under President Obama, and the policy was suspended during the first Trump administration before being reinstated by President Biden. However, the agency’s courthouse policy was reversed again earlier this year, leading to a surge in arrests and a staggering drop in court appearances. Internal ICE guidance from the Biden era found that executing civil immigration enforcement actions in or near a courthouse may chill individuals’ access to courthouses and, as a result, impair the fair administration of justice.
The Consequences of the Ruling
The judge’s decision is likely to have significant consequences for asylum seekers and other noncitizens in the region. By blocking ICE and the Department of Justice from making civil arrests at immigration courthouses, the decision effectively restores the pre-Trump prohibition on such arrests. This means that asylum seekers and other noncitizens will no longer have to fear being arrested and detained when they appear in court. However, the decision only applies to ICE’s San Francisco Area of Responsibility, which encompasses all of Northern and Central California. The administration has announced its intention to appeal the decision to the 9th Circuit, where Trump-appointed judges have swung the bench far to the right of its longtime liberal reputation.
The Broader Implications of the Ruling
The judge’s decision is likely to have broader implications for the Trump administration’s deportation tactics. By ruling that ICE and the Department of Justice failed to consider the "costs" of their new policies, including the chilling effect on noncitizens’ participation in their removal proceedings, the judge has sent a strong message that the administration’s actions will be subject to scrutiny and challenge. The decision is also likely to set up a possible circuit split and even a Supreme Court challenge to courthouse arrests in 2026. A district judge in Manhattan ruled the opposite way on a similar case this fall, setting up a potential conflict between different circuit courts. Ultimately, the judge’s decision is a significant victory for asylum seekers and other noncitizens in the region, and is likely to have far-reaching implications for the Trump administration’s deportation tactics.
