ICE Arrests in Immigration Courts Halted by California Judge's Ruling

A federal judge in California has struck down policies that permitted U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to conduct arrests within immigration courts across the country. U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts ruled that these directives were "arbitrary and capricious," stating that ICE and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) failed to offer reasoned explanations for their actions in a 71-page decision.

“

failed to provide reasoned explanations for their actions

The ruling also nullified a separate policy that extended the time individuals could be held in short-term detention cells from 12 to 72 hours. While the decision impacts current policy, the Trump administration retains the option to appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Immigration attorneys argued during the litigation that the presence of ICE agents in court hallways created a "chilling effect" on court attendance. Data cited in the court filings indicated that in the San Francisco area, arrests that were once rare became nearly 50 per week after the new policy's implementation. A former immigration judge with 21 years of experience on the bench stated she had no knowledge of civil ICE arrests within the courthouse during her tenure.

“

chilling effect

The Department of Homeland Security's acting general counsel, James Percival, criticized the ruling as "naked judicial activism in service of an anti-American, open-borders agenda." However, the decision leaves open the possibility for ICE and the Department of Justice to establish new arrest policies, provided they are supported by a justification that complies with the Administrative Procedure Act. The case, Pablo Sequen v. Albarran, was filed by the ACLU of Northern California.

“

naked judicial activism in service of an anti-American, open-borders agenda