A federal judge has ruled that Immigration and Customs Enforcement guidance for conducting warrantless civil arrests fails to meet constitutional probable cause standards, continuing a preliminary injunction that constrains how federal officers execute immigration enforcement operations ordered by President Donald Trump.
U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell in Washington, D.C., said Thursday that when conducting civil immigration arrests without a warrant in the District, defendants shall not rely on the probable cause standard or analytical approach set forth in the five-page memorandum from the former acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The ruling extends a preliminary injunction Howell issued in December 2025.
The Constitutional Standard
Howell said the instructions failed to tell officers to assess a person's connections to the community before concluding that person is a flight risk and therefore needs to be taken into custody immediately. The decision addresses the procedural requirements federal agents must follow when making arrests without warrants, a common practice in immigration enforcement operations.
The action is the latest step in a lawsuit filed in 2025 by four noncitizens and the nonprofit organization CASA in Washington challenging their arrests during immigration sweeps by the federal agency, which were part of a law-enforcement surge ordered by President Donald Trump.
Government's Legal Position
The Department of Homeland Security responded to questions about Thursday's order in an email saying, "ICE has authority for lawful arrests." The email said, "Law enforcement officers use 'reasonable suspicion' to investigate immigration status and probable cause to make arrests consistent with the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution," and added, "The Supreme Court has already vindicated us on these practices."
The government's response underscores the ongoing tension between immigration enforcement priorities and procedural requirements imposed by federal courts. The Department of Homeland Security maintains that its officers operate within constitutional boundaries when conducting immigration enforcement operations.
Scope of the Ruling
Howell approved another request by the plaintiffs seeking more records to help explain how the policy will be implemented, but she rejected some of their arguments and said the government had adhered to her preliminary injunction order on some issues. The mixed ruling suggests the judge found compliance in some areas while requiring additional transparency in others.
Madeleine Gates, associate counsel at the Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, said, "We got what we were asking for essentially." She said the ruling "reaffirms that federal agents have to comply with the law. They do not get a pass in doing immigration enforcement." Gates also said, "This particular case is all about what happens at the outset, before the arrest is made."
The case centers on the procedures federal immigration officers must follow when making arrests without judicial warrants, a practice that has become more prevalent during immigration enforcement surges. The ruling does not prohibit warrantless arrests but requires that officers follow specific procedural standards when assessing whether immediate custody is necessary.
Why This Matters:
This ruling highlights the institutional checks that constrain executive branch enforcement operations, even during periods of heightened immigration enforcement. The decision does not prevent ICE from conducting arrests but imposes procedural requirements that could slow enforcement operations and increase administrative burdens on federal agents. The government's position that Supreme Court precedent supports its practices suggests this dispute may ultimately require higher court resolution. For immigration enforcement operations ordered by the Trump administration, the ruling creates additional procedural hurdles that could affect the efficiency of enforcement sweeps. The requirement to assess community connections before determining flight risk adds a layer of analysis that federal officers must now document, potentially affecting the pace and scope of civil immigration arrests in the District of Columbia.