A US federal judge in California on Tuesday vacated four of the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement policies, holding that immigration officials have failed to provide a legally sufficient justification for eliminating longstanding limits on civil immigration enforcement at courthouses.
The court granted the plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment, finding that the challenged policies are arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The vacation of the policies effectively restores prior agency limits on both courthouse arrests and short-term detention holds.
The court found that none of the four policies satisfied the APA’s requirement that agencies provide reasoned explanations when changing existing policies. Tuesday’s order explained that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) eliminated longstanding courthouse enforcement limits without offering “even a rudimentary reason,” and that the memorandum by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) rested on an “incorrect assumption” about the validity of ICE’s policy changes. Judge P. Casey Pitts explained:
For 80 years, Congress has commanded federal agencies to think before they act. That instruction—codified in the Administrative Procedures [sic] Act—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.
The case, Pablo Sequen v. Albarran, is a federal class action filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of noncitizens who were arrested by ICE while attending routine hearings at immigration courts. The named plaintiff, Carmen Aracely Pablo Sequen, is a Guatemalan asylum seeker who was detained by ICE as she was leaving a hearing at the San Francisco immigration court in July 2025. The lawsuit challenges several 2025 immigration directives, including ICE Policy Nos. 11072.3 and 11072.4, ICE’s “Nationwide Hold Room Waiver” memorandum, and the EOIR Operating Policy 25-06.
Tuesday’s ruling is the latest development in ongoing legal challenges to courthouse arrest policies. A federal judge in New York reached similar conclusions in the May holding in African Communities Together v. Lyons. Similarly, a federal judge in New York upheld the state’s Protect Our Court Act last November, rejecting the Trump administration’s argument that the state law prohibiting immigration arrests at or near courthouses is preempted by federal law. The issue has extended beyond civil litigation, as a judge in Wisconsin was convicted on felony obstruction charges last December after directing an immigrant defendant through a non-public courthouse exit to avoid arrest by ICE agents.
