A federal judge on Friday ordered the Department of Homeland Security to pause immigration arrests at courthouses across Northern California and in Pacific islands, a ruling that could still be appealed by the Trump administration.
Since May, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents have arrested hundreds of people at routine check-ins and court hearings in San Francisco, Concord, and other immigration courthouses across the state and country.
The American Civil Liberties Union argued in a lawsuit that the widespread arrests have “torn apart families” and “interfered with people’s ability to access counsel and to pursue eligible claims for relief,” meaning that it has hindered their ability to pursue asylum.
The lawsuit, Garro Pinchi v. Noem, filed by the ACLU and partner firms in October, argued that ICE arrested immigrants who pose no danger or flight risk, breaking from 40 years of past practice and violating their due process rights.
“In May 2025, DHS officers began re-arresting and re-detaining noncitizens whom DHS had previously released … which has resulted in a staggering wave of arrests,” Judge Casey Pitts wrote in a 67-page order.
Pitts found that the change in policy likely violated due process by detaining people who had already been released by the government “without first making an individualized determination that the individual’s material circumstances had changed, such that they posed a flight or security risk.”
The “deprivation of physical liberty by detention” and the “deprivation of constitutional rights” caused “irreparable” harm, Pitts wrote.
More so, the Department of Homeland Security did not provide a written explanation justifying its new practice, Pitts wrote. His ruling is meant to pause ICE’s “re-detention policy” until there is a “final judgement” in the upcoming few months.
Judge Pitts also granted class-action status to the suit, ensuring the ruling applies to all individuals affected by the policy in ICE’s “San Francisco area of responsibility,” — Northern and Central California, Hawai’i, Guam and Saipan.
Since May, Mission Local has tracked 129 courthouse arrests at the two immigration courthouses in San Francisco. With these arrests, according to the lawsuit, DHS has “drastically overturned longstanding federal policies and practices … without any reasoned explanation.”.”
At a hearing in early December before Judge Pitts, ACLU attorneys said ICE’s practice of “re-detaining” immigrants — arresting those who are already in the process of applying for asylum — breaks from more than 40 years of precedent.
At that December hearing, ACLU attorneys said the courthouse arrests had targeted those who were following protocol for asylum-seekers: they had entered the country to seek asylum, voluntarily turned themselves into authorities, and had been subsequently released after being deemed not a threat.
From that point, the asylum-seekers were required to attend regular ICE check-ins and court hearings. Nevertheless, the plaintiffs found themselves “re-detained,” without any change in circumstances or explanation, said Bernwanger.
Judge Pitts’ order noted that the Department of Homeland Security “struggled to provide a consistent answer” when asked to justify the arrests.
“There is no evidence in the record that DHS offered a reasoned explanation for its changed approach at the time it began implementing the re-detention policy,” Pitts wrote. “The natural conclusion is that no contemporaneous rationale existed. This alone makes the re-detention policy arbitrary and capricious.”
A final ruling is expected in the coming months.