U.S. District Judge P Casey Pitts of the Northern District of California on Tuesday struck down two Trump administration policies that widened the scope of immigration enforcement at courthouses and lengthened the time noncitizens could be detained in short-term holding facilities. The ruling, which vacated the measures nationwide, determined that the agencies had acted “arbitrary and capricious” in violation of federal law.
The case was brought by an asylum seeker who was arrested after leaving a routine hearing at the San Francisco immigration court. The policies targeted by the lawsuit included an ICE directive that rescinded prior restrictions on arrests at immigration courthouses and increased the maximum detention period in short-term cells from 12 hours to 72 hours. A similar policy from the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review eliminated previous limits on courthouse arrests, according to the ruling.
Judge Pitts, appointed by President Joe Biden, wrote that the Trump administration had not offered adequate justification for reversing the earlier rules. “For 80 years, Congress has commanded federal agencies to think before they act,” the judge said in the 71-page opinion, adding that the law requires “an agency at least provide sound reasons for following its chosen course.”
The decision effectively restored the Biden-era guidance that had confined courthouse arrests to situations involving national security threats, imminent danger of violence, or “hot pursuit” of someone posing a public safety risk. It also reinstated the 12-hour cap on holding detainees in short-term facilities.
Since taking office in January 2025, President Trump has sharply escalated immigration arrests and deportations, a push that has faced a series of legal challenges from advocacy groups and individuals affected by the enforcement measures. The Department of Homeland Security’s general counsel, James Percival, criticized Tuesday’s ruling on social media, calling it “naked judicial activism in service of an anti-American, open borders agenda.” The ruling is expected to be appealed.