How have federal courts ruled on ICE warrantless arrest policies in major cities since 2022, and what consent decrees remain in force?

1. Chicago’s rulings: a concrete rebuke and an active consent decree

A U.S. district judge in Chicago concluded that ICE violated the 2022 Castañon Nava consent decree by making at least 22 warrantless arrests earlier in the year, and ordered relief for those detained, retraining of agents, monthly reporting of warrantless arrests, and the nationwide re-issuance of a warrantless-arrest policy consistent with the decree ^{[1] [2] [3]}. The judge stopped short of a multi-year extension requested by immigrant-rights groups but extended the operative restraints at least until February and directed ICE to meet plaintiffs and certify corrective steps before further hearings ^[2]. Local reporting and advocacy groups alleged a broader pattern tied to aggressive operations such as “Operation Midway Blitz,” claims the court found sufficient to require oversight and disclosure ^{[7] [2]}.

2. The legal yardstick: statutory authority, probable cause, and Fourth Amendment limits

Federal statutory text and judicial precedent frame interior immigration arrests under 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a) and related cases as requiring “reason to believe” or probable cause—interpreted by courts as roughly equivalent to the Fourth Amendment probable cause standard for warrantless arrests—so judges have legal grounds to find some ICE warrantless entries and seizures unlawful when exigent circumstances or consent are absent ^{[4] [5]}. That body of law has allowed lower courts to hold that forcible home entries and prolonged detentions without the recognized exceptions violate the Fourth Amendment, producing a judicial foundation for consent-decree enforcement and injunctions ^{[4] [5]}.

3. Nationwide friction: agency directives, rescissions, and government pushback

The Chicago litigation unfolded after senior ICE lawyers signaled the consent decree was rescinded within the agency, prompting courts to compel continued compliance and to require ICE to re-issue an agency-wide probable-cause policy consistent with the decree—indicating tension between agency internal guidance and federal-court orders ^[2]. Department of Homeland Security and ICE statements emphasize compliance with lawful court orders even while the agency pursues a more expansive enforcement posture, placing district-court monitoring and remedial orders at the center of enforcement disputes ^{[3] [1]}.

4. Broader concerns, collateral rules, and limits of remedies

Legal observers warn that even when courts find arrests unlawful, immigration-court procedures often permit evidence obtained in contested arrests to be used against respondents—so civil immigration remedies may not fully redress constitutional violations—while federal judges can still impose injunctive relief, reporting, and retraining requirements under consent decrees ^{[6] [1]}. Commentators also flag doctrinal risks from Supreme Court precedents that tolerate pretextual stops in other contexts, a logic critics say ICE could exploit to manufacture probable cause via traffic or regulatory stops, a contention explored in analysis of Whren-related doctrine ^[8].

5. What remains in force and the outstanding questions

As of the reporting, the Castañon Nava consent decree remains operative in the Northern District of Illinois under a judicial extension and supervisory orders requiring nationwide policy reissuance, monthly reporting of warrantless arrests, and remedial steps for individuals detained without warrants ^{[1] [2]}. Beyond Chicago, enforcement and oversight vary by district: courts retain the power to enjoin unlawful conduct and enforce consent decrees where litigants have prevailed, but the national picture of consent decrees and district rulings is imperfectly mapped in the available reporting and depends on ongoing litigation and data disclosures ^{[1] [9] [2]}.