A federal judge in San Francisco issued a nationwide injunction on Tuesday prohibiting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from arresting individuals at immigration courts, and simultaneously invalidated a related policy that had extended the permissible detention period in short-term holding cells from 12 to 72 hours. The ruling, by U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts, found that the Trump administration’s reversal of a decades-old practice against courthouse arrests violated the Administrative Procedure Act because the agencies involved “failed to provide reasoned explanations for their actions.” The decision applies across the entire United States, expanding beyond a previous New York ruling that had only barred such arrests in Manhattan.

From Washington, the Department of Homeland Security’s general counsel, James Percival, denounced the ruling as “naked judicial activism in service of an anti-American, open borders agenda,” arguing that if a judge orders removal, the individual should be taken into custody immediately. The administration maintains that courthouse arrests are a logical enforcement tool. In contrast, the plaintiffs—a coalition of civil rights groups including the ACLU of Northern California—argued that the practice deterred migrants from attending their hearings, undermining the integrity of the immigration court system. Judge Pitts, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, noted that ICE and the Executive Office for Immigration Review had ignored the “chilling effect” on court attendance, with data from the San Francisco area showing arrests surged from rare occurrences to nearly 50 per week after the policy change.

The ruling also struck down the extended detention policy, finding that holding individuals for more than 12 hours in punitive conditions violated Fifth Amendment rights and that ICE had failed to consider alternatives to address capacity issues. The decision does not permanently foreclose courthouse arrests; it leaves the door open for the administration to issue new policies if they are accompanied by a reasoned justification that meets the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. The case, Pablo Sequen v. Albarran, was filed in August 2025 and had already led to a preliminary injunction in December 2025 that blocked arrests only within ICE’s San Francisco area of responsibility, which includes Northern California, Hawaii, Guam, and Saipan. Tuesday’s ruling extends that protection nationwide, creating a uniform legal standard after a May 2025 ruling in New York had restricted arrests solely in three Manhattan courthouses, leading to divergent interpretations.

The Trump administration is expected to appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, a venue that has historically been a focal point for legal challenges to executive immigration actions. Viewed from legal circles in California, the ruling underscores the judiciary’s insistence on procedural compliance under the Administrative Procedure Act, a 1946 law that requires agencies to articulate a rational basis for policy shifts. While the injunction remains in effect, immigration attorneys across the country are advising clients to consult their legal representatives on how the order applies to their specific circumstances. The Department of Justice has not yet indicated whether it will seek an emergency stay pending appeal.