SAN JOSE, Calif. — A coalition of civil rights organizations is asking a federal judge to strike down two cornerstone immigration enforcement policies adopted under the second Trump administration, arguing that they convert courthouses into enforcement dragnets and subject immigrants to prolonged detention in facilities never designed for overnight confinement.
In two motions for partial summary judgment filed last week in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the plaintiffs seek to vacate Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s nationwide waiver of a 12-hour detention limit in holding cells and to block policies authorizing civil immigration arrests at immigration courthouses. The filings are part of a broader class action lawsuit, Pablo Sequen v. Albarran, challenging the legality of both practices under the Administrative Procedure Act.
If granted, the rulings would apply nationwide, restoring the long-standing 12-hour cap on detention in ICE holding facilities and barring civil immigration arrests at immigration courthouses across the country.
At the center of the detention challenge is ICE’s June 24, 2025, memorandum titled “Nationwide Hold Room Waiver,” which allows immigrants to be held for up to 72 hours in temporary holding cells. For decades, ICE policies limited confinement in such rooms to 12 hours and expressly barred beds or bedding, reflecting the agency’s own acknowledgment that hold rooms were intended only for short-term use.
In their motion, the plaintiffs argue that ICE “upended decades-long policy” when it extended allowable detention from 12 hours to three days and did so without reasoned decision-making, consideration of alternatives, or attention to the constitutional and humanitarian consequences. According to the filing, the waiver “necessarily creates unconstitutional conditions of confinement,” because individuals are held overnight “in rooms where ICE prohibits the use of beds or bedding, resulting in forced floor-sleeping in violation of individuals’ due process rights.”
The motion states that the waiver memo permits detention for “up to, but not exceeding, 72 hours” while simultaneously declaring that “all other Hold Room and holding facilities requirements continue to apply,” a combination the plaintiffs say guarantees inhumane conditions by design.
ICE justified the waiver by citing increased enforcement and capacity strain to its Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), stating that “ERO’s average daily population has significantly increased to over 54,000,” placing pressure on transfers to longer-term detention facilities. But the plaintiffs argue that the agency failed to reconcile the waiver with existing detention standards or to plan for extended confinement in barebones cells.
Running parallel to the detention challenge is a sweeping attack on courthouse arrest policies adopted in early 2025 by ICE and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EIOR). Those policies reversed years of agency guidance that sharply limited civil immigration arrests in or near courthouses out of concern they would deter people from appearing in court.
In their courthouse arrest motion, the plaintiffs describe the new policies as presenting immigrants with “a cruel Hobson’s choice—appear in immigration court for their hearings and face immediate arrest and detention, or forsake their asylum claims and American dreams and receive in absentia removal orders.”
The motion traces a sharp break from prior practice. Until 2025, ICE guidance generally barred civil immigration arrests at courthouses, warning that such actions “may chill individuals’ access to courthouses, and as a result, impair the fair administration of justice.” EOIR echoed those concerns in a 2023 policy that cited the “inevitable” chilling effect courthouse arrests would have on court attendance and safety.
Those policies were rescinded in January 2025, when ICE issued interim guidance broadly authorizing arrests in or near courthouses and EOIR followed by отменing its own restrictions. The final ICE courthouse arrest policy, issued in May 2025, took effect immediately.
The plaintiffs argue that the agencies failed to account for reliance interests created by years of contrary policy and offered explanations that were “internally inconsistent, illogical, and unsupported by the administrative record.” The filings contend that the policies undermine Congress’ interest in ensuring attendance at removal proceedings and erode the separation between immigration enforcement and adjudication.
U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts has already signaled skepticism. On Dec. 24, 2025, he issued an order staying the courthouse arrest policies within ICE’s San Francisco Area of Responsibility, which covers Northern and Central California, after finding they were likely unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act. In the new motion, the plaintiffs argue that the full administrative record only reinforces that conclusion.
Civil rights advocates say the two policies work in tandem, feeding fear on the front end of the immigration system and suffering on the back end. Nisha Kashyap, program director at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, said the policies hollow out basic constitutional protections.
“The Trump administration’s arbitrary policies are an assault on due process,” Kashyap said. “Transforming immigration courthouses into sites of arrest eviscerates the right to access justice while prolonging detention in barren cells violates the Fifth Amendment’s core promise against punishment without trial.”
Jordan Wells, also a program director at the Lawyers’ Committee, said the courthouse arrest policy was designed to discourage people from pursuing lawful claims. “The administration’s reckless courthouse arrest policy is an affront to justice, designed to sabotage the immigration court system and force people to abandon their lawful claims,” Wells said.
From the ACLU of Northern California, appellate advocacy director Neil Sawhney framed the litigation as an effort to interrupt a feedback loop between arrest and detention.
“One policy creates fear of the system, and the other inflicts suffering within it, creating a cycle of trauma,” he said. “We are fighting to break this cycle by ending both the courthouse arrests and the prolonged, brutal detentions they feed.”
Laura Sanchez, legal director at the Central American Resource Center of Northern California, said the policies are felt most acutely by families navigating the immigration system. “They force parents to choose between appearing in court to fight for their right to stay with their children, or missing that hearing to avoid being snatched away by masked agents,” Sanchez said.
The plaintiffs are represented by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, CARECEN SF, the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern California and the law firm Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP. In court filings, the lawyers argue that the Administrative Procedure Act requires federal agencies to provide reasoned explanations when reversing settled policy, particularly when those changes threaten access to justice and constitutional rights.
“ICE itself has acknowledged that its hold rooms are neither intended nor equipped for longer-term detention,” the detention motion states, arguing that the 12-hour waiver has resulted in people being held for days in “barebones holding cells which lack the equipment or facilities necessary to meet detained individuals’ basic human needs.”
.“The Administrative Procedure Act is a cornerstone of accountable government, requiring agencies to act with reason and transparency,” said Mark Hejinian, a partner at Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP. “The Trump administration has trampled on these requirements. The government failed to consider alternatives and disregarded profound constitutional and human costs. We hope the court will see these failures and vacate both policies.”
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.
