Who Gets Targeted
U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts of the Northern District of California on Tuesday, June 23, blocked the Trump administration from arresting non-American citizens at immigration courthouses and limited how long noncitizens can be held at short-term facilities. The order came after a case in the Northern District of California over Immigration and Customs Enforcement arresting noncitizens attending immigration court proceedings, turning a place meant for legal process into a trap.
The case challenged the agency’s practice of holding noncitizens for sometimes days in facilities without a bed or other adequate accommodations. That meant people showing up to comply with the system could end up locked in conditions described in the case as lacking basic necessities, all under the machinery of immigration enforcement.
What the Court Said
In a 71-page order, Pitts said the Trump administration policy of making arrests at immigration court had a "chilling effect" that threatened to undermine the nation’s immigration system. He dismissed arguments that immigrants with solid legal cases had nothing to fear from the Trump administration directive to make arrests at courthouses.
Pitts wrote, "The proper functioning of the immigration system depends on such noncitizens attending their scheduled removal proceedings," and added, "Thus, the chilling effect of courthouse arrests could undermine the proper enforcement of immigration laws even if it affected only noncitizens likely to be removed at the end of the process."
That language lays out the basic contradiction: the system demands attendance, then punishes attendance. The courthouse becomes less a site of due process than a node in a dragnet, with the threat of arrest hanging over routine appearances and check-ins.
Pitts also noted that witnesses testified that the Trump policy of holding immigrants in facilities meant for only 12-hour detention had resulted in "inhumane" conditions. Noncitizens have testified about similar conditions at supposedly temporary ICE detention facilities around the country. The people at the bottom of the hierarchy are the ones made to absorb the cost when the apparatus decides convenience matters more than basic human treatment.
Dragnet as Policy
ICE under Trump has made widespread use of the practice of arresting noncitizens making routine appearances in immigration court. According to the case brought in California, the Department of Homeland Security immigration enforcement arm had turned "immigration courthouses and routine reporting check-ins into dragnet arrest operations."
The administration has also made widespread use of holding noncitizens for sometimes days at a time in facilities that do not have beds or limited access to food and restrooms. That is the material reality behind the official language of enforcement: people are processed, detained, and warehoused in conditions that witnesses and testimony described as inadequate and inhumane.
DHS General Counsel James Percival responded by calling the judge's order "judicial activism." In a statement, he said, "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."
That statement tries to dress coercion up as common sense, equating immigration court with criminal sentencing and treating the machinery of removal as if it were beyond challenge. It is the language of authority defending itself.
What People Did
Immigration advocates around the country celebrated Pitts' ruling. U.S. Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-Texas, called it "excellent news." The El Paso-area representative said in a statement, "Immigrants who show up to court – “the right way” – have been targeted by this administration. So glad to see this blatantly illegal and cruel policy struck down."
Her statement captured the basic cruelty of the policy: people who complied with the process were the ones being targeted. The case and the ruling centered on that contradiction, with the court acknowledging that courthouse arrests could chill attendance and interfere with the system’s own functioning.
The order also limited how long noncitizens can be held at short-term facilities, responding to testimony about detention sites meant for only 12-hour detention but used to hold people for sometimes days. In the language of the case, those facilities were not just temporary holding spaces but part of a wider system of coercion that relied on confinement without adequate beds, food, or restrooms.
The ruling landed on the same day it was issued, Tuesday, June 23, 2026, and it directly challenged a practice that had turned courthouses and routine check-ins into arrest operations. For the people forced through that system, the court’s order interrupted one piece of the dragnet — at least for now.