What do court rulings say about ICE arrests made at immigration courthouses since 2024?
Executive summary
Federal judges since 2024 have both constrained and scrutinized ICE’s renewed practice of arresting people at immigration courthouses, issuing regional injunctions and detailed rulings that find constitutional and administrative-law problems with warrantless courthouse arrests and tactics that turn appearances into traps [1] [2] [3]. At the same time, the Department of Homeland Security and ICE defend the arrests as lawful and necessary to detain criminal noncitizens, and several high-profile suits remain pending or under appeal, leaving the national legal landscape unsettled [4] [5] [6].
1. Federal courts have enjoined courthouse arrests where they find due-process and procedural defects
In Northern California a federal judge temporarily halted ICE courthouse arrests for a broad regional group after finding the tactic placed asylum seekers in a catch‑22—risk arrest by attending court or face default—ruling that the practice implicated Fifth Amendment due‑process concerns and likely violated the Administrative Procedure Act given the agency’s unexplained policy change (Judge P. Casey Pitts in San José) [1] [2] [6]. That stay covered multiple courts in the San Francisco region and followed evidence of dozens of arrests tied directly to courthouse appearances [1].
2. Some judges have limited warrantless arrests by requiring probable cause or other safeguards
In Colorado a 66‑page decision barred certain warrantless arrests, finding the practice a routine tactic used to meet enforcement quotas and ordering that officers have pre‑arrest probable cause that the individual is unlawfully present and likely to flee before obtaining a warrant—language that significantly narrows ICE’s discretion to effect collateral courthouse or nearby arrests [3]. That ruling frames the issue as not only constitutional but fact‑specific: judges scrutinize whether ICE had adequate individualized grounds before seizing people who came to court [3].
3. Plaintiffs’ attorneys have successfully framed courthouse arrests as administrative‑law violations and harms to court participation
National advocacy groups and local plaintiffs have filed class actions arguing ICE’s policy reversals lacked reasoned explanation and chilled attendance at immigration hearings, leading some courts to accept pseudonymous plaintiffs and permit discovery into agency decision‑making—claims that have propelled temporary remedies and broadened judicial attention to systemwide impacts on due process and access to justice [5] [7] [6]. Litigation has focused not only on isolated arrests but on systemic tactics—such as getting cases dismissed to strip procedural protections and then arresting people outside—alleged to convert court appearance obligations into enforcement traps [7] [5].
4. The government contests these rulings, asserting legal authority and public‑safety rationales
DHS and ICE have publicly defended courthouse arrests as “common sense” enforcement of criminal noncitizen arrests and rescinded prior internal limits, citing individual criminal cases and interagency coordination as lawful bases for arrests at or near courthouses [4]. Government lawyers have argued in hearings that ICE retains statutory authority to arrest where it deems necessary and that policy shifts reflect elected officials’ enforcement priorities—an argument courts are weighing against APA, Fourth Amendment and due‑process claims [4] [6].
5. The result is a patchwork of district rulings, ongoing appeals, and unsettled national standards
Courts have produced a mix of narrow injunctions, broad orders restricting warrantless arrests, and ongoing litigation in multiple districts and the D.C. district court, leaving relief uneven: some regions enjoy court‑ordered protections while others remain exposed to aggressive arrest practices, and key questions—how much deference to give ICE, when administrative‑procedure rules were flouted, and the scope of probable‑cause requirements—are still being litigated and appealed [1] [3] [6]. Reporting and advocacy groups document widespread arrests and chilling effects, but several cases are unresolved and the government has signaled appeals, so the ultimate contours of the law remain in flux [8] [9] [5].
Bottom line
Since 2024 judges have pushed back where they find constitutional or procedural defects—issuing stays and limiting warrantless courthouse arrests—while the executive branch insists its actions are lawful and necessary; the result is a contested, regionally variable legal terrain that will continue to be defined through litigation and appeals [1] [3] [4].