A federal judge in Northern California has vacated U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Executive Office for Immigration Review policies that allowed civil arrests at courthouses and extended detention in short-term holding facilities, ruling that the agencies acted arbitrarily and failed to offer a reasoned explanation for the changes. The same ruling also gave final certification to two classes of plaintiffs challenging the policies in Pablo Sequen v. Albarran.
U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts said the government’s 2025 courthouse-arrest policies and ICE’s nationwide hold-room waiver could not stand under the Administrative Procedure Act. The order effectively restores earlier restrictions that had limited courthouse arrests to narrow circumstances and capped time in holding rooms at 12 hours.
The case stems from a class-action lawsuit filed after ICE stepped up arrests at immigration courts in the San Francisco area. Plaintiffs argued that the policy changes chilled attendance at hearings, created fear in court buildings and led to inhumane detention conditions at 630 Sansome, ICE’s holding facility in San Francisco.
Pitts wrote that the challenged policies lacked the kind of reasoned decision-making federal law requires. He said the agencies did not adequately explain why prior safeguards were dropped or why ICE’s short-term holding rooms should suddenly be used for overnight or multi-day detention.
The ruling also certified two classes that had been provisionally approved in November 2025. The Courthouse-Arrest Class covers people with hearings on EOIR’s non-detained docket in an immigration courthouse in ICE’s San Francisco Field Office Area of Responsibility. The Detention Class covers people who are now or will be detained in a holding cell in ICE’s San Francisco Field Office.
The court rejected the government’s argument that it lacked authority to move forward while appeals were pending. Pitts said those appeals did not strip the district court of power to resolve the class-certification and summary-judgment motions before it.
He also turned aside the government’s request to pause the case, saying the delay would burden class members and that the government had not shown a clear hardship from proceeding. The court further held that the plaintiffs had standing to seek broad relief and that vacatur, not a narrower remedy, was the proper fix under the APA.
In its analysis, the court said ICE’s 2025 courthouse-arrest policies abandoned earlier guidance that had warned of a chilling effect on court attendance and safety concerns. The judge also noted evidence in the record showing a sharp rise in courthouse arrests after the new policies took effect.
On detention, the court said ICE had previously treated hold rooms as short-term facilities and generally required them to be emptied by the end of daily operations. But in June 2025, the agency issued a blanket waiver allowing detainees to remain in holding facilities for up to 72 hours or longer in exceptional circumstances, citing increased enforcement and a lack of bed space.
The ruling said the waiver did not meaningfully address whether those rooms were suitable for extended confinement and did not explain changes to other policies that continued to govern the facilities.
The case is being closely watched because it affects not only the San Francisco area but, through vacatur of the policies, ICE and EOIR’s broader enforcement framework. The order leaves open the possibility of new agency guidance, but it bars the challenged policies as they were written.
Kishor Panthi
View More PostsKishor Panthi is the founder and editor-in-chief of Khasokhas and NepYork. He is the author of three books, “Kampan,” "UNTRANSLATABLE" and “Zero Mile.” He writes about social issues, immigration, and politics.
