U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts of the Northern District of California vacated Trump administration policies that systematized arrests of noncitizens at immigration court facilities across the country and extended the duration of detention in short-term holding facilities. The judge found that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and collaborating government agencies acted arbitrarily and capriciously in implementing these enforcement directives without adequate administrative procedure or reasoned explanation. The policies lacked the evidentiary foundation and transparent rulemaking process required under the Administrative Procedure Act.

The ruling directly affects thousands of noncitizens who appear in immigration court proceedings, many of whom face deportation hearings. These individuals now retain protection from arrest during their court appearances—a principle foundational to due process. The expansion had created a chilling effect on court attendance, as immigrants feared appearing before judges would result in immediate ICE custody. Families planning to attend deportation hearings or seek legal remedies faced the prospect of arrest in courthouse hallways, effectively preventing access to judicial proceedings.

This decision follows a pattern of federal courts blocking Trump immigration enforcement actions deemed procedurally unlawful. The ruling connects directly to concurrent legal challenges to travel ban restrictions that blocked case adjudication (May 23, 2026) and TPS termination decisions now before the Supreme Court (May 24, 2026). These cases collectively demonstrate that courts are invalidating immigration policies executed through executive orders or agency directives that bypass standard rulemaking and administrative safeguards. The courthouse arrest expansion represents an escalation of enforcement intensity similar to prior actions, but without the procedural legitimacy courts require.

The court's vacatur is a final judgment, though the Trump administration may appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The immediate remedy restores prior policies governing courthouse conduct and detention duration. Complete reversal would require the administration either to abandon the policies or to undertake formal notice-and-comment rulemaking that justifies the enforcement expansion with documented rationale and data.