...
By Dan Gooding
Associate News Editor
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
A federal judge appointed by former President Joe Biden told the Trump administration Tuesday that it needs to stop its sweeping arrests of immigrants in court, saying the government failed to justify broad changes that expanded arrests at courthouses and prolonged detention times.
The Trump administration drastically ramped up arrests of suspected illegal immigrants at Department of Justice (DOJ) immigration courts after President Donald Trump returned to the White House in January 2025, sparking criticism from attorneys and lawmakers that immigrants going through the proper legal channels were being unfairly targeted. At the same time, those who were detained were held for longer periods after a 12-hour cap was lifted.
In a 71-page order, U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts found that policies introduced by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the DOJ's immigration court system violated federal administrative law because they were adopted without adequate explanation or consideration of their impact.
Read More on Politics
"For 80 years, Congress has commanded federal agencies to think before they act," Pitts wrote, referring to the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) meant to govern how policies are changed.
"Because the record before the Court demonstrates that ICE and EOIR [Executive Office of Immigration Review] failed to provide reasoned explanations for their actions, the Court concludes that each of the challenged policies is arbitrary and capricious in contravention of the APA," the judge said.
The court blocked the policies nationwide, delivering a significant setback to the administration’s broader effort to ramp up immigration enforcement.
"In sum, ICE’s 2025 courthouse-arrest policies are devoid of rational explanation," Pitts said.
In response to the ruling, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) General Counsel James Percival told Newsweek, "When a judge sentences a defendant, the defendant is taken into custody. If an alien is ordered removed by an immigration judge, the same should happen. A district judge ordering otherwise is naked judicial activism in service of an anti-American, open borders agenda."
...
What the Judge Found
The case centered on whether federal agencies properly justified sweeping changes to immigration enforcement in 2025.
Pitts made clear that the issue was not whether the government could enforce immigration law, but whether it followed the rules when changing policy.
When discussing the APA, Pitts said the law requires agencies to "provide sound reasons for following [their] chosen course."
Instead, the court found ICE and its partner agency failed to meet that basic standard, concluding they "failed to provide reasoned explanations for their actions."
The ruling builds directly on a March admission by the Trump administration that it had relied on a flawed legal justification for courthouse arrests, using guidance that "does not and has never applied" to immigration courts.
Detention Expansion Also Struck Down
The ruling also invalidated a separate ICE policy allowing migrants to be held in short-term holding facilities for up to 72 hours in lieu of the long-standing 12-hour limit. The court also found major flaws in how the policy was adopted.
The agency failed to consider "important aspects of the problem," including risks tied to detention conditions and whether alternatives—such as reducing arrests—were available, the judge wrote.
The opinion also highlighted inconsistencies in the government’s approach, saying that "an unexplained inconsistency in agency policy" is itself grounds for finding a rule unlawful.
...
Immediate Impact of the Ruling
The decision means the policies are no longer in effect nationwide.
Under federal law, courts reviewing agency action must "set aside" policies found to be unlawful, the judge ruled, ordering full vacatur rather than limiting relief to the plaintiffs in the case. Vacatur effectively annuls a previous judgment or proceeding.
As a result:
- ICE no longer has authority to broadly conduct courthouse arrests under the 2025 guidance.
- The 72-hour detention rule is invalidated.
- Earlier restrictions on enforcement and detention may effectively be reinstated.
The ruling does not prohibit ICE from making arrests at courthouses entirely, but requires that any such policies be backed by a reasoned explanation.
The DOJ and ICE could now write up new policies if they comply with the legal requirements Pitts set out.
Didn't Supreme Court Ban Nationwide Injunctions?
The Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Trump v. CASA limited federal judges’ use of nationwide injunctions, but it did not decide whether courts can still set aside federal agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act. In this case, Pitts certified two classes of immigrants affected by the courthouse arrest and detention policies and then vacated those policies under the APA, thereby making the ruling nationwide.
The government asked the judge to pause the case while it appealed, but he refused. He said the government waited two months to seek a stay; it was unclear when or whether the appeal would move forward, and the government had not shown a clear hardship from continuing.
Contact Newsweek editors on this story: Anna Commander, Ed Cummins and Sam Wilson.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines