- “The new ICE policy was ‘arbitrary and capricious,’ in part because it disregarded ‘that widespread civil arrests at immigration courts could have a chilling effect on noncitizens’ attendance at removal proceedings (as common sense, the prior guidance, and the actual experience in immigration court since May 2025 make clear).'” – U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts
By Vanguard Staff
SAN JOSE, Calif. — A federal judge in Northern California has temporarily halted a Trump administration policy that authorized widespread arrests of immigrants at immigration courthouses, finding the policy likely violates federal administrative law and has undermined access to justice.
In a 38-page order issued Tuesday, U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts granted a stay blocking Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Executive Office for Immigration Review from carrying out courthouse arrests within ICE’s San Francisco Area of Responsibility while a broader legal challenge proceeds.
The ruling came in Pablo Sequen v. Albarran, a class action lawsuit challenging policies adopted by the Trump administration in early 2025 that reversed long-standing federal guidance treating courthouses, particularly immigration courts, as sensitive locations.
Judge Pitts concluded that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the policies violate the Administrative Procedure Act because the administration failed to provide a reasoned explanation for abandoning decades of practice and ignored the foreseeable consequences of the change.
In his order, Pitts wrote that the new ICE policy was “arbitrary and capricious,” in part because it disregarded “that widespread civil arrests at immigration courts could have a chilling effect on noncitizens’ attendance at removal proceedings (as common sense, the prior guidance, and the actual experience in immigration court since May 2025 make clear).”
The lawsuit challenges guidance issued by ICE and EOIR that allows civil immigration arrests at or near courthouses whenever agents believe a person will be present, even if that individual does not pose a national security or public safety threat.
Plaintiffs argued that the policy has forced immigrants to choose between attending mandatory court hearings and risking arrest, or staying away and facing removal orders issued in their absence.
The court found evidence that courthouse arrests increased sharply after the policies took effect and were accompanied by a dramatic rise in missed hearings, leading to a wave of in absentia deportation orders.
Judge Pitts noted that earlier ICE and EOIR guidance explicitly warned that courthouse arrests could deter people from appearing for hearings and impair the fair administration of justice, concerns the administration failed to meaningfully address when it reversed course.
The decision follows an earlier ruling in the same case. On Nov. 25, 2025, the court issued a preliminary injunction requiring ICE to remedy what it found were unconstitutional conditions in short-term holding cells at its San Francisco Field Office on Sansome Street, where class members were detained in unsafe and ill-equipped facilities.
The class action is brought on behalf of immigrants with non-detained cases pending in immigration courts within ICE’s San Francisco jurisdiction. The plaintiffs are represented by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, the ACLU Foundation of Northern California, the Central American Resource Center of Northern California, and Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP.
Carmen Pablo Sequen, a class plaintiff and asylum seeker from Guatemala, described her experience of being arrested after a routine immigration court appearance.
“I fled persecution to seek safety, only to find myself arrested in the courthouse, the one place I was told to trust,” she said. “The terror of that day has haunted me. This decision means I can finally focus on my asylum case, not on the ICE officers who might be waiting for me outside the courtroom door.”
Jordan Wells, a senior staff attorney with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, said the ruling addresses what advocates described as a deliberate effort to undermine the immigration court system.
“The administration’s reckless policy is an affront to justice, designed to sabotage the immigration court system and force people to abandon their lawful claims,” Wells said. “This ruling is a critical step in ensuring that immigrants can safely pursue their immigration cases without fear of arrest.”
Laura Sanchez, legal director at the Central American Resource Center of Northern California, said the stay offers immediate relief to people navigating the immigration system.
“For our clients, who are asylum seekers, survivors of violence, parents fighting to stay with their children, this ruling begins to lift a cloud of terror,” Sanchez said. “They can now walk into court, not as targets, but as people lawfully pursuing their cases.”
Neil Sawhney, director of appellate advocacy at the ACLU of Northern California, emphasized the broader impact of the case.
“This victory is for the three class representatives who endured the trauma of arrest or near arrest simply for following the law,” he said. “Their courage in standing up to this cruel policy will protect thousands of people with upcoming immigration court dates.”
Attorneys cautioned that the ruling is temporary and geographically limited. “Immigrants can breathe easier as they prepare for their next court dates,” said Mark Hejinian, a partner at Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP. “But this is a pause, not the end. We are committed to making this victory permanent and expanding it across the country, ensuring that courthouses remain accessible venues for people to lawfully present their cases, not sites of fear.”
The stay remains in effect while the court continues to review the legality of the policies under federal administrative law.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
