Federal Judge Bars ICE From Immigration Court Arrests And Prolonged Detention

The Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration appears to be in a constant whirlwind of victories and losses, as federal judges across the country rule in favor of and against policies aimed at tackling illegal immigration.

Amid an appeals court victory that allowed the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to resume expanded expedited deportations without due process within the U.S., a federal judge has imposed a nationwide injunction on multiple Trump administration immigration policies.

Judge Pitts' Ruling

U.S. District Judge Casey Pitts of San Francisco ruled in a 71-page opinion that the Trump administration’s rescission of a long-standing policy against arrests at immigration courts and another policy that allowed Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to hold detainees for alleged immigration violations for more than 12 hours were arbitrary and violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

“For 80 years, Congress has commanded federal agencies to think before they act,” Judge Pitts wrote, referencing the APA.

The APA “does not require an agency to make the choice that a reviewing court might deem preferable. But it demands that an agency at least provide sound reasons for following its chosen course,” he added.

Judge Pitts argued that "ICE is not arresting individuals who appear for criminal or civil violations 'unrelated' to the arrest but instead arresting noncitizens based on the very immigration offenses for which the noncitizens are appearing in immigration court."

Additionally, Pitts affirmed that detention waivers granted to ICE to hold detainees for longer violated the Fifth Amendment rights of detainees. Pitts asserted that detainees were subject to “punitive conditions of confinement.”

DHS General Counsel Responds

"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," DHS general counsel James Percival wrote in response to the ruling. "A district judge ordering otherwise is naked judicial activism in service of an anti-American, open borders agenda."