A federal judge in San Francisco has issued a ruling that prevents Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Justice's Executive Office for Immigration Review from conducting civil arrests at immigration courthouses in Northern California. This decision, made by Judge P. Casey Pitts, addresses a controversial tactic employed during the Trump administration that has raised significant concerns regarding the rights of noncitizens in removal proceedings.

Judge Pitts noted that the situation presents noncitizens with a difficult choice: to attend immigration court and risk arrest and detention, or to avoid court and forfeit their opportunity to seek asylum or other forms of relief from removal. The ruling effectively reinstates a pre-Trump policy that limited such arrests at sensitive locations, which include courthouses, hospitals, and schools.

The policy against courthouse arrests was initially established decades ago and was maintained when ICE was formed after the September 11 attacks. Under President Obama, courthouses were added to the list of sensitive locations, but this policy was suspended during the Trump administration and later reinstated by President Biden. However, recent internal guidance from ICE indicated that enforcement actions near courthouses could deter individuals from accessing the judicial system, thereby undermining the fair administration of justice.

Despite this guidance, ICE's policy was reversed earlier this year, resulting in a significant increase in arrests and a corresponding decline in court appearances. Data from the Justice Department indicates that the number of removal orders issued in absentia has more than doubled this year, with over 50,000 asylum seekers ordered removed after failing to appear in court since January.

Judge Pitts emphasized that ICE must consider the negative consequences of its policies, particularly how they may discourage noncitizens from participating in their removal proceedings. The ruling is expected to lead to further legal challenges against ICE's practices in areas previously deemed off-limits for enforcement actions. The case was initiated by a group of asylum seekers who faced detention upon attending court, highlighting the risks involved in seeking legal recourse.

The ruling currently applies only to the San Francisco Area of Responsibility, which includes Northern and Central California. The administration has indicated plans to appeal the decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, where the judicial landscape has shifted significantly in recent years.