Biden judge torches Trump ICE crackdown as ‘devoid of rational explanation,’ nukes courthouse arrest policy

A federal judge who has repeatedly blocked the Trump administration’s immigration policies dealt another blow Tuesday, striking down rules that expanded courthouse arrests and prolonged detention in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) holding facilities.

In a 71-page decision, U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts, who was nominated by former President Joe Biden, struck down the policies after finding that ICE and the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) did not provide the reasoned explanation required under the Administrative Procedure Act.

The ruling continues a pattern of Pitts intervening against Trump administration immigration policies. Earlier this year, he blocked an ICE initiative that would have allowed the agency to rearrest migrants it had previously released. In another case, he ordered sweeping changes at a San Francisco ICE detention facility, citing overcrowding and conditions he found likely violated constitutional standards.

BIDEN JUDGE OVERRULED ON KEY TRUMP IMMIGRATION POLICY

While Pitts’ order applies nationwide, it differs from the broad nationwide injunctions that the Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional in its 2025 decision in Trump v. CASA. Rather than issuing an injunction prohibiting the government from enforcing the policies, Pitts vacated them under the Administrative Procedure Act. When a court vacates a policy, it removes the policy itself rather than just limiting how it can be enforced.

Pitts’ ruling comes in response to a lawsuit filed by a group of asylum seekers challenging ICE’s 2025 policies that removed restrictions on civil immigration arrests at courthouses, including immigration courts, and a separate ICE policy allowing detainees to remain in short-term holding facilities for up to 72 hours instead of the agency’s longstanding 12-hour limit.

The judge found ICE failed to adequately explain why it abandoned prior guidance that limited courthouse arrests because of concerns they could discourage immigrants from appearing for hearings and interfere with the administration of justice.

“As the Court has previously detailed, the policies entirely fail to address the chilling effect of courthouse arrests on noncitizens’ attendance at court proceedings, which is both a critical factor underlying ICE’s 2021 guidance and an ‘important aspect of the problem’ in its own right,” Pitts wrote.

FEDERAL JUDGE LIMITS ICE ARRESTS WITHOUT WARRANT, PROBABLE CAUSE

Pitts was particularly critical of the government’s handling of arrests at immigration courthouses. According to the ruling, the administration spent months defending the policy as applicable to immigration courts before later disclosing that ICE internally viewed the policy as not applying there at all.

“Nothing on the face of ICE’s 2025 courthouse-arrest policies or in the administrative record suggests that ICE recognized it was removing all prior limitations on civil enforcement activities at immigration courthouses without any substitute guidance,” Pitts wrote.

He ultimately concluded that the agency offered virtually no explanation for the change.

“ICE’s 2025 courthouse-arrest policies are devoid of rational explanation for (or even acknowledgement of) the agency’s choices,” the judge wrote.

Pitts also vacated a related EOIR policy rescinding restrictions on immigration enforcement activity at immigration courthouses. The judge found the agency relied on flawed assumptions and failed to grapple with evidence that courthouse arrests could discourage immigrants from attending proceedings.

The judge separately struck down ICE’s nationwide waiver of its 12-hour detention limit. The waiver was adopted after ICE reported that increased enforcement activity had strained detention capacity and complicated transfers to longer-term facilities.

FEDERAL JUDGE RULES ICE IN IOWA ILLEGALLY DETAINED MAN, TRIED TO ‘COVER ITS TRACKS’

Pitts found the agency failed to consider alternatives, reconcile the policy with its own detention standards or adequately address whether keeping detainees in holding facilities for extended periods could create unconstitutional conditions.

“Nothing in the memorandum announcing the 12-hour-detention waiver or in the administrative record suggests that ICE engaged in reasoned consideration of its obligation to avoid creating punitive conditions of confinement,” he wrote.

Throughout the opinion, Pitts emphasized that the administration remained free to pursue tougher immigration enforcement policies if it followed the procedural requirements imposed by federal law.

“An agency may not … depart from a prior policy sub silentio,” Pitts wrote, citing Supreme Court precedent.

The ruling follows a similar decision last month by U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel in New York, who largely barred ICE from conducting civil immigration arrests at or near three Manhattan immigration courthouses while a separate challenge proceeds.

The Department of Homeland Security sharply criticized Pitts’ ruling.

“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. A district judge ordering otherwise is naked judicial activism in service of an anti-American, open borders agenda,” DHS General Counsel James Percival said in a statement.