In a landmark ruling that could reshape immigration enforcement in the U.S., a federal judge in Northern California has blocked Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from arresting immigrants simply for showing up to their scheduled court hearings.
Judge P. Casey Pitts Issues Major Stay
On December 24, 2025, U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued the decision halting ICE’s practice of detaining immigrants at immigration courthouses across Northern California, including San Francisco, Sacramento, and Concord.
Judge Pitts found that the government’s policy of conducting civil arrests at courthouses was created without a reasonable explanation and had a “chilling effect” on immigrants’ willingness to appear for hearings — forcing noncitizens to choose between facing possible detention or skipping court and risking removal.
Why the Ruling Matters
The judge’s order applies to ICE’s San Francisco Area of Responsibility, which includes Northern California, Hawaii, Guam, and Saipan.
According to the ruling, the current courthouse arrest policy:
-
Was implemented without a sufficient legal explanation.
-
Likely violated federal administrative procedures.
-
Discouraged immigrants from pursuing asylum or other relief from removal.
The practice had led to dozens of immigrants being detained after routine hearings — a shift from long-standing policies that restricted civil immigration arrests in sensitive locations like courthouses.
Advocates Praise the Decision
Immigrant rights groups quickly praised the ruling, saying that it restores due process protections and ensures that people can participate in their hearings without fear of immediate detention. Earlier arrest practices had reportedly led to increased “in absentia” removal orders because many immigrants feared attending court.
Government Response and What’s Next
The federal government, including ICE and the Department of Justice, has expressed concern that limiting courthouse arrests could hinder enforcement efforts. Officials are expected to consider an appeal, and legal experts say the case could become a broader point of contention in immigration policy debates.
What This Means for Immigrants
For immigrants in Northern California, the ruling provides a measure of relief. Those with upcoming court appointments may now attend hearings without the immediate threat of being detained simply for appearing in court. However, legal advocates emphasize that this is a temporary stay, and the policy landscape could shift again depending on future litigation and appeals.
Conclusion
Judge P. Casey Pitts’s order represents a notable judicial check on federal immigration enforcement. By prioritizing access to justice and constitutional protections, the decision could have lasting implications for how the U.S. balances enforcement with fundamental legal rights — especially for asylum seekers and immigrants trying to navigate a complex and often daunting legal system.