Bad Intel Exposed — ICE Policy Vacated

A Biden-appointed federal judge just blocked ICE from making courthouse arrests nationwide, and the ruling says the government could not justify the policy change.^[1]^[2]

Quick Take

The court said ICE and the Executive Office for Immigration Review gave no good reason for the shift.^[1]^[2]
The ruling reaches immigration courts nationwide, not just one city.^[2]^[5]
Another federal court in New York had already limited courthouse arrests in Manhattan.^[2]^[20]
The Justice Department admitted ICE relied on wrong information in court filings.^[5]^[21]

Judge Says Policy Change Was Unlawful

U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts in San Francisco ruled that the Trump administration’s courthouse-arrest policy was “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act.^[1]^[2] That means the court found the agencies did not give a reasoned explanation for ending earlier limits on arrests at immigration courts. The decision blocks the policy nationwide and puts a sharp stop to a practice that critics said made people fear court appearances.

The ruling matters because it hits the core of how federal agencies change policy. The court said the government failed to explain why it abandoned a long-standing approach that kept many courthouse arrests under tighter control.^[1]^[2] For conservatives who want law enforcement to stay strong, the bigger question is not sympathy for illegal immigration. It is whether the executive branch can change enforcement rules without following the law and without giving a clear record.

DOJ Error Deepened the Case

The legal fight became more serious after the Justice Department admitted that ICE had relied on erroneous information for months to defend courthouse arrests.^[5]^[21] According to the court record and related reporting, the government later conceded that the 2025 guidance it cited “does not and has never applied” to civil immigration enforcement in or near immigration courts.^[21] That admission undercut the claim that the policy had a sound legal base from the start.

The New York case added more pressure on the administration. A federal court there already stayed civil immigration arrests in three Manhattan locations while the case moves forward.^[20]^[21] Those limits are narrower than Pitts’s order, but they show a growing pattern of judges pushing back on courthouse enforcement. Supporters of stronger border control may still back ICE’s mission, yet they can also see why sloppy paperwork and bad legal support create avoidable losses.

Why the Nationwide Scope Matters

The nationwide scope is the most contested part of the ruling. Judge Pitts did not just issue a local fix. He vacated the policy across the country, which will likely draw a fast appeal.^[2]^[5] That broad reach may face legal challenge because the Supreme Court has previously limited lower courts’ power to issue sweeping injunctions in some cases.^[6] The administration will almost certainly argue that this order goes too far.

🚨JUST IN🚨

A Biden-appointed judge has just struck down ICE’s 2025 courthouse arrest expansion and 72-hour detention policy nationwide.

Judge Casey Pitts claims ICE & EOIR acted arbitrarily by dropping earlier conclusions that these arrests discourage court appearances,… pic.twitter.com/RRL8YVMaew

— Breanna Morello (@BreannaMorello) June 23, 2026

Still, the court’s message was plain: federal agencies cannot make a major enforcement shift without a proper explanation.^[1]^[2] That principle should matter to anyone who values rule of law over raw power. The issue is not whether immigration laws should be enforced. It is whether that enforcement is carried out cleanly, honestly, and within the limits set by Congress and the courts. The administration now faces another high-stakes appeal.