Judge Leaves Courthouse Arrest Policies Vacated During Appeal

A federal judge has refused to pause a nationwide ruling that vacated expanded civil immigration-arrest policies at or near courthouses, leaving the challenged rules out of effect while the administration appeals.

U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts denied the government’s request for a stay in Pablo Sequen v. Albarran, Case No. 25-cv-06487-PCP, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The July 10, 2026, order is a district-court decision about the appeal process—not a ruling by the Ninth Circuit or the Supreme Court.

What changed in the latest order

The case reached this stage after Pitts granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs on June 23, 2026, and vacated the challenged agency actions under the Administrative Procedure Act. The court entered final judgment on June 30.

The government then asked the district court to pause that judgment while its appeal proceeds. Pitts denied the request, so the vacatur remains in effect unless an appellate court changes or stays it.

Which policies remain vacated

The judgment covers ICE Policy Nos. 11072.3 and 11072.4, the Executive Office for Immigration Review’s Operating Policies and Procedures Memorandum 25-06, and ICE’s June 24, 2025, Nationwide Hold Room Waiver.

In practical terms, the ruling removes the challenged 2025 expansion of civil immigration arrests at or near immigration courthouses. It also ends the automatic waiver of the prior 12-hour limit for short-term hold-room detention. The district court said the agencies had not adequately considered relevant legal and constitutional issues before adopting the changes.

Why the judge denied a stay

Pitts applied the four-factor test for a stay pending appeal: whether the government was likely to succeed, whether it faced irreparable harm, how the stay would affect the other parties and where the public interest lay.

The judge wrote that the government had raised, at most, serious legal questions and was unlikely to reverse the vacatur. The order said the government had not shown a high degree of irreparable harm from leaving the policies out of effect.

The court pointed to the fact that the courthouse-arrest policies had already been stayed in ICE’s San Francisco area of responsibility—which includes Northern California, Hawaii, Guam and Saipan—since December 24, 2025. Pitts said the government had not provided concrete evidence of actual burdens arising from that suspension.

On the detention issue, the order noted that the government had acknowledged that field offices could still hold people beyond 12 hours by seeking individualized waivers under the prior process. The ruling therefore restores the requirement for an affirmative request rather than an automatic extension.

What the ruling does not prohibit

The order does not bar all ICE arrests at courthouses. ICE may continue making arrests outside courthouses, and arrests inside courthouses remain permitted in circumstances allowed under the prior policies.

The decision also does not create an absolute 12-hour ceiling in every situation. Field offices may still seek individualized extensions under the prior framework, according to the court.

Pitts said the public-interest balance favored compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act and reducing the risk that people in removal proceedings would face a choice between attending court and risking arrest. The order does not eliminate the legal obligation to attend a scheduled hearing.

What happens next

The administration can continue its appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and can seek appellate relief that could alter, stay or reverse the district court’s judgment. Until an appellate court acts, the challenged 2025 policies remain vacated.

People with immigration-court cases should continue following their hearing notices. The Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review provides court-status information, court locations and its Automated Case Information System. Court documents and notices remain the official source for a person’s hearing information.

Case-specific questions should be directed to an immigration attorney or an accredited representative. This article describes the court ruling and is not individualized legal advice.

Sources

Look for updates to this story

Discover more from Interactive News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.