A federal judge has issued a nationwide injunction halting several Trump administration immigration policies, including measures that allowed arrests at immigration courts and removed limits on how long some immigration detainees could be held.

Get today's headlines by email

In a 71-page ruling issued Tuesday, Judge P. Casey Pitts found that the policies were arbitrary and violated the Administrative Procedure Act. He said officials from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Executive Office for Immigration Review failed to provide adequate justification for the changes.

Court Arrest Policy Challenged

The challenged policy permitted federal agents to arrest noncitizens appearing before immigration judges. The practice began during the Trump administration and allowed ICE officers to take individuals into custody while they were attending immigration court proceedings.

The policy has drawn criticism from community groups and Democratic lawmakers, who argue that courthouse arrests have created fear within immigrant communities and led to tense confrontations outside courtrooms.

Pitts rejected the government's rationale, writing that ICE was not arresting people for unrelated criminal or civil violations but was instead detaining noncitizens based on the same immigration matters for which they had appeared in court.

The judge said the policy rested on a “false premise” that the government had properly withdrawn 2021 guidance limiting arrests at immigration courthouses. He concluded that officials had failed to provide a rational explanation for eliminating those restrictions.

Detention Policy Also Struck Down

Pitts also blocked a separate detention waiver that allowed ICE to hold detainees for more than 12 hours after arrest.

According to the ruling, some detainees at an immigration facility in San Francisco were held longer than 12 hours, including overnight and, in some cases, for several days.

The judge found that the policy violated detainees' Fifth Amendment rights because they were subjected to what he described as punitive conditions of confinement. He also said ICE had not adequately considered alternatives to address detention-capacity problems that prompted the policy.

Administration Pushes Back

The ruling drew a sharp response from the Department of Homeland Security.

DHS General Counsel James Percival argued on social media that individuals ordered removed by immigration judges should be taken into custody, comparing the process to criminal defendants being detained after sentencing.

He described the decision as judicial activism that undermines immigration enforcement.

Similar Ruling in New York

The California decision follows a separate ruling issued last month by Judge P. Kevin Castel, who barred federal agents from making immigration arrests at courthouses in Manhattan.

Castel similarly concluded that the administration's decision to withdraw previous limits on immigration court enforcement actions was “arbitrary and capricious.”

Join the discussion?

Already a member?

Adapted by ASEAN Now. Source 24 June 2026

View full article

Finally some sense !!!

40 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

Finally some sense !!!

How can you justify this position? If they are in the country illegally, they should be apprehended and deported.

From this same judge's DEC 2025 ruling that is part of today's class action certification:

As the Court has already detailed, ICE has arrested large numbers of noncitizens at immigration courthouses in northern California pursuant to the challenged courthouse-arrest policies, and it avows that it will continue doing so.

This circumstance presents noncitizens in removal proceedings with a Hobson’s choice

between two irreparable harms. First, they may appear in immigration court and face likely arrest and detention.

Alternatively, noncitizens may choose not to appear and instead to forego their opportunity

to pursue their claims for asylum or other relief from removal. As the declarations of immigration attorneys and former immigration judges establish, dozens of noncitizens are already taking this path and receiving in absentia removal orders as a result.

Biden appointee and openly LGBTQ+. Another activist District Court judge. This ruling will be overturned.

1 hour ago, dinsdale said:

Biden appointee and openly LGBTQ+. Another activist District Court judge. This ruling will be overturned.

Well i think you are all out of luck !to get this overturned !! looks like this ruling going nationally so far NY, California, Massachusetts to start, MAGA revolt has started !

4 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

Well i think you are all out of luck !to get this overturned !! looks like this ruling going nationally so far NY, California, Massachusetts to start, MAGA revolt has started !

It's a district court ruling. It can be struck down.

1 hour ago, dinsdale said:

Biden appointee and openly LGBTQ+. Another activist District Court judge. This ruling will be overturned.

Joe Biden installed some real stinkers on the district courts.

3 minutes ago, TedG said:

It's a district court ruling. It can be struck down.

Well you better start then, because once one start it spreads so so far 3 states maybe more have not gone into it deep

3 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

Well you better start then, because once one start it spreads so so far 3 states maybe more have not gone into it deep

3 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

Well you better start then, because once one start it spreads so so far 3 states maybe more have not gone into it deep

What ever does this mean?

7 minutes ago, TedG said:

What ever does this mean?

Start overturning the rulings if its that simple !!

2 hours ago, Effective altruism said:

How can you justify this position? If they are in the country illegally, they should be apprehended and deported.

But who will cut their grass for slave wages ?

5 hours ago, webfact said:

A federal judge has issued a nationwide injunction halting several Trump administration immigration policies

A federal district judge lacks the power to issue a nationwide injunction.

https://ogletree.com/insights-resources/blog-posts/supreme-court-rules-federal-district-courts-likely-lack-authority-for-universal-injunctions/

6 hours ago, Effective altruism said:

A federal district judge lacks the power to issue a nationwide injunction.

https://ogletree.com/insights-resources/blog-posts/supreme-court-rules-federal-district-courts-likely-lack-authority-for-universal-injunctions/

Except per the above linked article when there is a FRCP Rule 23 certified class action.

4 hours ago, JerryM said:

Except per the above linked article when there is a FRCP Rule 23 certified class action.

Again from the Ogletree link above:

The Court emphasized that plaintiffs seeking broad relief for groups of similarly situated individuals must do so through class action procedures, rather than through universal injunctions.

While the (Casa) ruling did not address the constitutionality of the executive order itself, it significantly alters the landscape of immigration litigation by requiring plaintiffs seeking broad relief to pursue class action procedures rather than universal injunctions.

18 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Biden appointee and openly LGBTQ+. Another activist District Court judge. This ruling will be overturned.

Now US justice depends on which prez made a judge's appointment?!? Pitiful!

And what does who they screw have to do with anything???

4 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

And what does who they screw have to do with anything???

Any port in a storm.