← Insights
June 2026 · Federal Court · By Felipe Montoya, Esq.

Federal Court Blocks ICE Arrests at Immigration Courts Nationwide

Decided June 23, 2026 — Pablo Sequen v. Albarran, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Judge P. Casey Pitts). Nationwide vacatur. General information about a recent ruling that may be appealed; how it applies depends on the facts.

On June 23, 2026, a federal judge in California vacated the 2025 policy that had authorized U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to make civil immigration arrests at and around immigration courthouses, holding that the government changed the rules without following the proper process. The order applies nationwide — including at the immigration courts here in Miami. Here is a plain‑English explainer.

Speak with the Attorney

The background

For years, immigration enforcement generally limited civil arrests at or near courthouses, recognizing that people must be able to attend their hearings without fear of being detained on the way in. In May 2025, ICE and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) rescinded those limits, opening the door to arrests at immigration courts. The same litigation also challenged a 2025 change affecting how long detainees could be held in short‑term facilities.

What the court ruled

The court held that the agencies violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) — the law that governs how federal agencies make policy — by reversing the prior courthouse‑arrest limits without a reasoned explanation. The judge vacated the new policy, which restores the prior baseline limits on courthouse arrests, and did so nationwide, in a lengthy (reported 71‑page) order.

What it means — and what it doesn't

In practical terms, the ruling restores the earlier limits on ICE civil arrests at and around immigration courts while it stands. That matters because attending a scheduled hearing is mandatory — missing it can lead to an in‑absentia removal order. (We covered what to expect at a hearing, and the stakes of appearing, in a separate post.) Two cautions: government policy rulings like this are frequently appealed, so a ruling in effect today can change; and it is not legal advice for any particular case.

If you have an upcoming hearing

Appearing at your scheduled immigration court hearing remains critically important. If you have concerns about attending — for safety, logistics, or any other reason — the right move is to speak with an immigration attorney before your hearing date about your specific situation and options.

Request a Consultation

This article is general legal information, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. It summarizes a recent legal development; how the law applies depends on the specific facts of each case. Consult a qualified immigration attorney about your situation. This website is attorney advertising.

Sources

  • U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal., Pablo Sequen v. Albarran — order vacating courthouse‑arrest policy (Judge P. Casey Pitts, June 23, 2026).
  • Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 553, 706 — law.cornell.edu.