“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,” the Department of Homeland Security’s general counsel, James Percival, posted on X. “A district judge ordering otherwise is naked judicial activism in service of an anti-American, open borders agenda.”

Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) also blasted the ruling, writing on X that it was “yet another example of partisan judges throwing sand in the gears of immigration enforcement.”

“The people want — indeed, voted for — the law to be enforced!” DeSantis added.

Iowa Solicitor General Eric Wessan likewise questioned the ruling, arguing federal law does not prohibit ICE arrests at courthouses.

“No law limits ICE arrests at (for example) courthouses,” Wessan wrote. “No matter, ICE can’t change its policy to arrest criminal illegal aliens that happen to be at a courthouse. Seems wrong!”

Pitts, who was appointed by Biden in 2022, concluded that both ICE and the Executive Office for Immigration Review failed to provide adequate justification for rescinding prior policies that restricted immigration arrests at courthouses and immigration courts.

The practice of arresting migrants at immigration courts expanded significantly after DHS updated its policy last year and allows ICE agents to take individuals into custody when they appear before immigration judges. Immigration advocates and Democratic lawmakers have argued the tactic discourages migrants from attending court proceedings and undermines confidence in the immigration system.

Pitts sided with those concerns, writing that ICE failed to address the rationale behind earlier guidance that warned courthouse arrests could chill attendance at hearings and impede access to justice. The judge found the agencies had not provided a “rational explanation” for removing those restrictions.

The opinion noted that ICE’s 2025 guidance removed previous limitations on courthouse arrests and left officers without meaningful internal restrictions governing civil immigration arrests at immigration courthouses.

Pitts also cited evidence that courthouse arrests surged after the policies took effect and that a former immigration judge reported a “dramatic decline” in attendance at hearings following the increase in enforcement activity.

The ruling additionally struck down a separate ICE policy that waived the agency’s long-standing 12-hour limit on detention in short-term holding facilities. The June 2025 waiver allowed detainees to remain in holding facilities for up to 72 hours, and longer in exceptional circumstances, due to increased enforcement operations and a shortage of detention space.

Pitts found the policy unlawful, concluding ICE failed to adequately consider alternatives to extended detention and did not address whether facilities designed for short-term confinement were suitable for overnight or multiday detention. The opinion noted that some detainees in San Francisco were held overnight or for several days in facilities originally intended for short-term processing.

ICE MAY DEPORT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS WITHOUT JUDGE APPROVAL, APPEALS COURT RULES

The California ruling comes about a month after U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel, an appointee of former President George W. Bush in New York, similarly blocked immigration courthouse arrests in Manhattan. Castel likewise found that the administration’s withdrawal of prior restrictions on courthouse enforcement actions was arbitrary and capricious.

DHS had not announced an appeal as of Tuesday evening, but the administration is likely to seek emergency review from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.