Judge says Trump administration can't make immigration arrests at courthouses

A federal judge has halted the U.S. government's practice of making immigration arrests at immigration courts, a policy implemented shortly after President Donald Trump took office.

U.S. District Judge Casey Pitts of San Francisco ruled that the Trump administration's reversal of the long-standing policy against arrests at immigration courts was not based on reasoned decision-making but a "complete lack of decision-making." The judge found that authorities failed to address the "chilling effect" such arrests have on individuals' willingness to attend court hearings.

“

not from merely unreasoned decision-making but a complete lack of decision-making

Referencing the Administrative Procedure Act, Pitts wrote that while agencies are not required to make choices preferred by courts, they must provide sound reasons for their chosen course. This ruling expands upon a previous order in May that had only applied to New York.

“

For 80 years, Congress has commanded federal agencies to think before they act. That law does not require an agency to make the choice that a reviewing court might deem preferable. But it demands that an agency at least provide sound reasons for following its chosen course.

James Percival, the U.S. Homeland Security Department's general counsel, condemned the ruling, calling it "naked judicial activism in service of an anti-American, open borders agenda." He argued that if defendants are taken into custody after sentencing, individuals ordered removed by an immigration judge should face the same.

The practice involved plainclothes agents making arrests in hallways, often in coordination with Homeland Security attorneys, after cases were dismissed by the government. Judge Pitts, appointed by President Joe Biden, also faulted the administration for holding individuals in nearby cells for longer than the prescribed 12-hour limit.

“

When a judge sentences a defendant, the defendant is taken into custody. If an alien is ordered removed by an immigration judge, the same should happen. A district judge ordering otherwise is naked judicial activism in service of an anti-American, open borders agenda.