Passim

Issues › Enforcement and arrests

ICE civil arrests at immigration courts and state courthouses

Blocked

2025 courthouse-arrest policies set aside

Some courthouse arrests are still allowed; the government has appealed

On June 23, 2026, the Northern District of California vacated ICE's January and May 2025 courthouse-arrest guidance and EOIR's related policy, and on July 10 denied a stay pending appeal. On September 30, the Southern District of New York separately vacated the ICE guidance as applied to immigration courts. Vacatur doesn't bar every courthouse arrest: earlier guidance allowing them in defined circumstances applies again. California alleges ICE arrests at its state courthouses have continued under a later directive; no court has ruled on that.

Status as of
October 31, 2026
Dockets checked
November 3, 2026

The policy

In January and May 2025, ICE replaced its 2021 limits on civil immigration arrests in or near courthouses with guidance that widened when officers may make them (ICE Policy Nos. 11072.3 and 11072.4), and EOIR adopted a related immigration-court policy (OPPM 25-06). Two immigrant-service organizations challenged the ICE guidance in New York, and noncitizens with hearings at San Francisco-area immigration courts challenged it in Northern California. On October 15, 2026, California sued over ICE arrests at its state courthouses, which it says have continued under a directive used since the 2025 guidance was vacated.

Court rulings

Rulings on the policy by court. Stay and procedural rulings say what the court did and aren't counted in the circuit row.

CourtRulingCaseNote
N.D. Cal. Ruled against the policy Carmen Aracely Pablo Sequen v. Sergio AlbarranNo. 5:25-cv-06487 · Jun 23, 2026 Policies arbitrary and capricious; vacated nationwide with the hold-room waiver. Stay pending appeal denied July 10; appeal No. 26-4310 pending.
S.D.N.Y. Ruled against the policy African Communities Together and The Door v. David J. VenturellaNo. 1:25-cv-06366 · Sep 30, 2026 Arbitrary and capricious as to immigration courts; vacated in part. Rejected the claim that the INA incorporates a common-law bar on courthouse arrests.

Who's covered

  • Everywhere the policy applies · Carmen Aracely Pablo Sequen v. Sergio Albarran

    The Northern District of California vacated ICE Policy Nos. 11072.3 and 11072.4 (the January and May 2025 courthouse guidance) and EOIR OPPM 25-06 under 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A). The court declined the government's request to limit relief to the certified classes, reasoning that the policies apply nationwide by their own terms. The same judgment vacated ICE's June 24, 2025 nationwide waiver of the 12-hour limit on hold-room detention.

    Source

  • Everywhere the policy applies · African Communities Together and The Door v. David J. Venturella

    The Southern District of New York vacated and set aside the January 2025 Interim Guidance and the May 2025 Final Guidance "to the extent they purport to rescind the April 2021 Guidance as applied to civil enforcement actions in or near immigration courts." The court rejected the government's request to limit the vacatur to the plaintiffs. For arrests at or near immigration courts, the court said ICE's policy reverts to the April 27, 2021 guidance.

    Source

For practitioners

  • The New York court relied on the government's March 2026 acknowledgment that the 2025 ICE guidance doesn't apply to arrests in or near immigration courts. It held that ICE's policy for those arrests therefore reverts to the April 27, 2021 guidance, which permitted them only in limited circumstances, and that the 2025 guidance's attempt to rescind the 2021 guidance for immigration courts was arbitrary and capricious. [1]
  • Pablo Sequen v. Albarran (N.D. Cal. No. 5:25-cv-06487) is also a class action. Its courthouse-arrest class is "[a]ll persons who have an immigration court hearing in a proceeding on EOIR's non-detained docket in an immigration courthouse in ICE's San Francisco Area of Responsibility," but the vacatur isn't limited to that class. The court entered a Rule 54(b) judgment June 30, 2026; the government appealed July 2 (Ninth Circuit No. 26-4310), and the court denied a stay pending appeal July 10. California's October 15 complaint describes the government's Ninth Circuit stay motion as pending. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]
  • In the New York case, the court entered judgment for the plaintiffs on Count I and for the government on Count II, and dismissed Counts III to V as moot after EOIR withdrew its policy on dismissing removal cases by oral motion. The plaintiffs' October 14 letter says judgment was entered on the docket on October 5 and treats the government's time to appeal as still open. No notice of appeal was found in the public record checked. [1][2][3]
  • California's complaint (C.D. Cal. No. 2:26-cv-12026) alleges violations of the APA and the Tenth Amendment and asks the court to vacate what it calls ICE's Courthouse Enforcement Directive (the May 2025 directive, the 2021 directive and the directive used since the vacatur) and to enjoin civil immigration arrests at California courts. These are requests; no ruling has been found. [1]
  • Both vacatur rulings treat vacatur under 5 U.S.C. 706 as a remedy that Trump v. CASA (2025) didn't address, since CASA concerned universal injunctions. Each court said it was following its own circuit's precedent that vacatur is the normal APA remedy. [1][2]

In plain language

In 2025, ICE told its officers they could make more immigration arrests in and around courthouses. Courts have since set those 2025 rules aside, though that doesn't ban every courthouse arrest. In June 2026, a federal court in California canceled ICE's 2025 courthouse-arrest rules, and a matching immigration-court policy, for the whole country. In September 2026, a federal court in New York also canceled them for immigration courts and said ICE's older 2021 rules, which allowed these arrests only in limited situations, apply there again. The government is appealing the California ruling. California claims ICE is still arresting people at its state courthouses and has sued to stop it. No judge has ruled on that yet. An immigration lawyer can tell you what applies to you.

Find free or low-cost legal help

New on the dockets, not yet reviewed

Court actions picked up from the dockets after the last review. They're quoted as filed and don't change the status until they're checked against the order.

Nothing new since the last review.

How we got here

  1. California filed challenge to ICE courthouse arrests

    State of California v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement · C.D. Cal. · Source

  2. Plaintiffs moved to enforce the detention-conditions preliminary injunction

    Carmen Aracely Pablo Sequen v. Sergio Albarran · N.D. Cal. · Source

  3. Court directed limited vacatur of ICE immigration-courthouse guidance

    African Communities Together and The Door v. David J. Venturella · S.D.N.Y. · Source

  4. Ninth Circuit dismissed another earlier government appeal

    Carmen Aracely Pablo Sequen v. Sergio Albarran · N.D. Cal. · Source

  5. Ninth Circuit dismissed two earlier government appeals

    Carmen Aracely Pablo Sequen v. Sergio Albarran · N.D. Cal. · Source

  6. Court set the schedule for the remaining claims

    Carmen Aracely Pablo Sequen v. Sergio Albarran · N.D. Cal. · Source

  7. Court denied a stay pending appeal

    Carmen Aracely Pablo Sequen v. Sergio Albarran · N.D. Cal. · Source

  8. Ninth Circuit docketed the appeal as No. 26-4310

    Carmen Aracely Pablo Sequen v. Sergio Albarran · N.D. Cal. · Source

  9. Government appealed the judgment to the Ninth Circuit

    Carmen Aracely Pablo Sequen v. Sergio Albarran · N.D. Cal. · Source

  10. Court entered Rule 54(b) judgment on the APA claims

    Carmen Aracely Pablo Sequen v. Sergio Albarran · N.D. Cal. · Source

  11. Court vacated ICE and EOIR courthouse-arrest policies and the hold-room waiver

    Carmen Aracely Pablo Sequen v. Sergio Albarran · N.D. Cal. · Source

Status changes

Selected changes since June 23, 2026, each with the order behind it.

  • 2025 courthouse-arrest policies set aside. Northern District of California vacated ICE Policy Nos. 11072.3 and 11072.4 and EOIR OPPM 25-06 Source

Cases (3)

CaseCourtLatestAs of
Carmen Aracely Pablo Sequen v. Sergio AlbarranNo. 5:25-cv-06487 · Lead case · Class actionN.D. Cal.Court vacated ICE and EOIR courthouse-arrest policies nationwide; government appeal pendingOct 22, 2026
African Communities Together and The Door v. David J. VenturellaNo. 1:25-cv-06366S.D.N.Y.Court ordered limited vacatur of immigration-courthouse arrest guidanceSep 30, 2026
State of California v. U.S. Immigration and Customs EnforcementNo. 2:26-cv-12026C.D. Cal.California challenged civil immigration arrests at state courthousesOct 15, 2026

In the news

Every status statement on this page links to the order it rests on. Docket entries marked "not yet reviewed" are quoted as filed. How we track litigation