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

• Pablo Sequen v. Albarran stay order
• ICE courthouse-enforcement policy
• EOIR Immigration Court Information
• Associated Press report on the June vacatur

The legal changes do not mean every immigration-related arrest at or near a courthouse is automatically barred. The California ruling removed the challenged policy framework, while other legal authorities and court-recognized exceptions remain part of the dispute.

What the June 23 ruling changed

U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts of the Northern District of California found that ICE and EOIR had not adequately explained their reversal of a longstanding approach that discouraged arrests at immigration courts.

The court’s Administrative Procedure Act reasoning focused on the agencies’ failure to address the practical consequences of the policy change, including the risk that arrests at mandatory hearings would deter people from attending court. The Associated Press described the ruling as a nationwide invalidation of the policy and reported that Pitts found more than ordinary unreasoned decision-making: the agencies had not adequately explained the change at all.

That is different from a blanket order immunizing everyone who enters or leaves an immigration courthouse. The ruling vacated the challenged policies. It did not resolve every question about arrests supported by separate legal grounds, arrests away from court, or the circumstances under which an arrest could still be lawful.

Why New York remains a separate test

U.S. District Judge Kevin Castel separately limited arrests at three Manhattan immigration courts: 201 Varick Street, 290 Broadway and 26 Federal Plaza.

Castel’s order permits courthouse arrests only in narrow circumstances described in the order, including threats to national security or public safety, an imminent risk of violence, an imminent risk that evidence in a criminal case will be destroyed, or circumstances in which an alternative location is unavailable or unsafe or the arrest would be too difficult to carry out elsewhere.

The New York litigation also followed the government’s concession that an ICE guidance memo cited in earlier proceedings did not apply to immigration courts. Castel said that representation had affected his earlier decision to allow the practice, prompting him to reconsider the scope of permissible arrests.

The July 16 arrest created a compliance question

Courthouse News Service reported that ICE arrested Matar Ndiaye at 290 Broadway on July 16, after he attended a master calendar hearing in his asylum case. His habeas petition alleges that he had appeared at earlier hearings, received a future individual-hearing date and was detained without prior warning or a finding that he posed a flight risk or danger to the community.

Those claims are allegations in ongoing litigation, not adjudicated findings. Courthouse News reported that the Department of Homeland Security did not immediately provide a specific explanation for Ndiaye’s arrest. In earlier proceedings, the government argued that safety concerns about alternative arrest locations, including possible protests, could fit within Castel’s narrow exceptions.

Castel also sought an explanation for continued arrests at Manhattan immigration courts and asked the government to show how particular arrests satisfied the requirements of his order. That inquiry could determine whether the exceptions remain limited in practice or become the basis for repeated enforcement actions.

What the July 21 public-access order does

On July 21, 2026, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction in Arias v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement requiring public access to presumptively open, in-person immigration hearings at 26 Federal Plaza and 290 Broadway.

The order does not cover 201 Varick Street. It also does not prohibit lawful hearing closures, attendance limits, security measures or restrictions needed to protect witnesses, parties, confidential information or the public. The order preserves lawful arrests, detention, transport, removal and other legitimate law-enforcement activity.

What people with hearings should do

People with scheduled immigration hearings should continue to appear unless EOIR or the court officially changes the hearing. The nationwide ruling is not a reason to assume that a hearing has been canceled or that attendance is optional.

EOIR says court documents and hearing notices are the official source of information. People should verify hearing dates, locations and status through EOIR’s Automated Case Information System, the immigration court handling the case and any attorney or accredited representative involved. EOIR lists its case-information hotline as 800-898-7180.

What to watch next

The next major questions are whether the government appeals or seeks a stay of the June 23 ruling, how courts interpret the New York exceptions, whether the government provides the explanations Castel requested and whether additional courthouse arrests lead to new due-process challenges.

For now, the practical rule is narrower than either side’s broadest claims: the nationwide policies were vacated, New York has additional restrictions, and people with scheduled hearings should rely on official court notices rather than assume that enforcement or hearing requirements have disappeared.

Sources

• Associated Press nationwide courthouse-arrest ruling report
• Courthouse News report on Manhattan courthouse-arrest limits
• Arias preliminary-injunction order
• EOIR Immigration Court Information

The ordinance creates a city policy boundary between Trenton police and federal immigration authorities. It followed public comments and debate about the scope of local police cooperation with ICE, including questions about the need for judicial warrants.

What the ordinance covers

The measure concerns civil immigration enforcement. It does not address ordinary criminal investigations, and the policy is focused on whether city police may assist ICE in civil immigration matters.

That distinction matters because the ordinance sets rules for the relationship between a local police department and a federal agency without making a broader statement about every form of contact between Trenton police and federal authorities.

Why it matters in Trenton

The council’s action affects police procedures and the way immigrant residents may interact with city government. Local policy decisions about cooperation can shape where residents draw the line between city services and federal immigration enforcement.

Trenton Journal reported that the ordinance was adopted during the council’s June 16 meeting and described the action as a response to advocacy and public concern over local law-enforcement interactions with federal immigration authorities. WHYY likewise characterized the vote as a city-level prohibition on police assistance to ICE in civil enforcement.

The vote is the confirmed action taken by the council. Public reports do not set out the ordinance’s full section-by-section text or identify separate implementation guidance and disciplinary procedures.

The proposed site was the warehouse at 7525 Cogswell in Romulus. The building is approximately 249,000 square feet, and the federal government purchased the property for $34.7 million, according to Associated Press reporting.

Earlier plans described an approximately 500-bed detention facility. The proposed conversion would have brought a large federal detention operation into the airport-area community, affecting the development outlook considered by residents, nearby schools, airport-area workers and local officials.

A project delayed as the lawsuit moved forward

Romulus and Michigan filed a federal lawsuit in March 2026 challenging the proposed conversion. The city’s official facility-update page links to the lawsuit filed March 24 against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and ICE.

The legal challenge was fully briefed in April, according to local reporting, but construction did not move ahead on the original timeline. Federal officials first postponed construction until late June and later delayed it through the end of July.

The dispute involved questions about zoning, floodplain review, infrastructure and the extent of local oversight over the proposed use. Those issues put the warehouse at the center of one of Romulus’ most consequential recent development and legal fights.

What changes now

The June 18 announcement removes the proposed detention use from Romulus’ immediate development outlook. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel said the warehouse would not be transformed into an immigrant detention facility as planned.

The decision does not establish what will happen to the warehouse next. Its future use, sale or other disposition remains unsettled. The public accounts also do not identify a final federal court ruling issued before officials stopped pursuing the project, so the lawsuit’s final procedural status is not clear.

For Romulus, the development is therefore a reversal of the proposed federal detention plan, but not a final answer about the property at 7525 Cogswell. Federal officials have said they are no longer pursuing this facility; the next publicly established step for the warehouse or the litigation has not been identified.

The shooting of Lorenzo Salgado Araujo is now the subject of both a local review involving the Harris County District Attorney’s Office and a federal investigation into a potential assault on a federal law-enforcement officer. The available reports do not establish whether any officer or agent has been charged, or whether either review is complete.

Different accounts of the stop

ICE said the shooting happened during a targeted enforcement operation in Houston. The agency described Araujo as attempting to evade arrest during the vehicle stop.

Family members have provided a different account of the events immediately before the shooting and have sought an investigation independent of the federal enforcement operation. The conflicting descriptions mean that the circumstances leading to the gunfire have not been resolved in the available reporting.

The shooting itself has not been officially determined to be unlawful or justified. Those conclusions would depend on investigative findings that have not yet been reported.

What the family says about Araujo

Araujo’s family said he was seeking workers for hire when he was stopped. The Associated Press reported that he was driving a crew to a homebuilding site when he was killed.

Family members also said Araujo and his wife had owned a Houston home for about 27 years. AP reported that he had three American sons. The family described him as having longstanding roots in the city and said he had no criminal convictions during his decades in the United States.

Those details come from family members and the AP report. They do not resolve the separate questions surrounding the enforcement operation, the stop or the federal allegations under investigation.

Local and federal reviews

The Harris County District Attorney’s Office said prosecutors would collaborate with federal authorities on a local review of the evidence. That review is part of the local response to a fatal shooting involving a federal agent in Houston.

The FBI’s Houston field office was also reported to be investigating a potential assault on a federal law-enforcement officer. The existence of that investigation does not establish that Araujo committed an assault, and the available reports do not say whether investigators have reached a finding.

The family and a Texas congresswoman have called for an independent probe, placing the question of investigative jurisdiction at the center of the case. The competing accounts and overlapping reviews could shape how the public learns what happened during the stop and whether any further action follows.

For Houston, the case raises broader questions about federal use of force, the role of local prosecutors when a federal agent is involved, and how a longtime resident is treated during immigration enforcement. The next known step is the continued review of the evidence by federal and local authorities; no completion date was reported.

ICE officials signed a contract in late June for the facility, which is intended to hold migrant families and unaccompanied children during final processing before removal flights. The contractor is identified as the LaSalle Family Foundation, a nonprofit arm.

The available evidence does not establish that the facility was operating by Aug. 7. Its capacity, staffing level, exact address, operating standards and role for local government have not been confirmed in the approved reporting.

What the facility is intended to do

According to AP, the facility is designed to reduce logistical problems involved in moving children between foster homes or shelters and locations where flights are processed. The planned site is roughly 175 miles northwest of New Orleans and is directly tied to the Alexandria airport area.

That location would bring a major federal immigration operation to the former military base near the airport. The project could affect airport-area logistics, federal contracting, local services and workers involved in the operation, while connecting the region to a broader immigration-processing system.

The approved evidence does not show whether Alexandria officials have approved or opposed the project. It also does not establish the facility’s expected number of residents, employees or flights. Those details should not be inferred from the contract or the proposed use.

Near-term local oversight dates

The City of Alexandria’s official 2026 meeting schedule lists City Council meetings for Aug. 11 and Aug. 25. Both meetings are scheduled to begin at 5 p.m. in City Council Chambers at 915 Third St. in Alexandria.

Those dates are the next identified opportunities on the city’s published calendar for residents and local officials to raise questions in a public council setting. The meeting schedule itself does not indicate whether the facility will be on either agenda or whether the council has a formal role in the project.

For now, the key date remains a possibility rather than a confirmed opening: AP reported that the facility could be operational as early as August 2026, while the available evidence does not confirm an operating date or current occupancy.

At least six of those people have been deported, one self-deported and at least eight immediate family members remained in federal immigration custody at the time of AP’s reporting. The figures are minimums from an independent review, not a complete government count.

Why the number is incomplete

The Department of Homeland Security does not maintain a dedicated public record of immigration detentions involving military families. AP assembled its review from federal court records, previous reporting and information verified with relatives and attorneys.

AP said the actual number is likely higher. The review does not establish that every person counted was eligible for military parole in place, adjustment of status or another specific immigration benefit.

A weakening of earlier protections

Previous administrations generally treated military service as an important mitigating factor when deciding whether to pursue immigration enforcement against immediate family members of service members and veterans. That approach has weakened under the Trump administration.

An Immigration and Customs Enforcement policy implemented in April 2025 states that military service alone does not exempt someone from the consequences of violating U.S. immigration laws. In a statement to AP, DHS said military service alone does not provide lawful immigration status or exempt someone from immigration-law consequences. The Pentagon declined to comment on AP’s findings.

The change is an enforcement-policy shift, not a new statute creating or removing a blanket exemption for military families.

How military parole in place works

Military parole in place allows some spouses, children and parents of active-duty service members and veterans to seek immigration status from inside the United States. USCIS describes the process as discretionary and eligibility-specific, so a military connection does not guarantee approval.

AP reported that the average time to receive military parole in place has more than doubled under Trump to about 12 months, based on USCIS data. That delay can leave relatives exposed to detention while an application is pending. AP also found cases in which family members were detained during immigration appointments or while seeking to adjust their status.

Military service therefore does not automatically legalize a noncitizen spouse or parent. A pending application also should not be assumed to prevent detention. Families facing these circumstances should seek qualified immigration counsel and review current USCIS guidance before relying on recruitment materials or informal advice.

Why service members are affected

The consequences extend beyond the person detained. AP documented service members losing child-care support, taking leave, delaying deployments and managing the emotional strain of having a spouse or parent in custody.

Those disruptions have raised concerns among military families and former immigration officials about morale and readiness. The reporting documents direct family impacts, but it does not establish that the enforcement approach has definitively changed recruitment or military preparedness nationwide.

Congressional oversight and what comes next

Sen. Elizabeth Warren‘s office released DHS data on March 24, 2026, describing arrests and deportation efforts involving veterans and family members. That release is congressional oversight material and reflects the senator’s interpretation of information obtained from DHS, not an independent public dataset covering active-duty families.

The next questions include whether DHS or the Pentagon will publish clearer case data, whether USCIS processing times or parole-in-place guidance will change, and whether affected families challenge the enforcement approach in court. For now, the available figures should be treated as minimums. Military families should not assume that service, a pending application or a recruitment promise provides immunity from immigration enforcement.

Sources

• AP review takeaways on military families detained by ICE
• USCIS parole in place eligibility guidance
• Sen. Warren's March 24, 2026 DHS-data release

The reported pause followed the July 7 shooting of Lorenzo Salgado in Houston and the July 13 shooting of Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero in Biddeford, Maine. Neither investigation has produced a final finding about whether the officers’ actions were lawful, justified or a violation of policy.

What changed — and what remains unclear

The Associated Press reported on July 14 that administration officials had told ICE officers to suspend most vehicle stops after the two shootings. The reported guidance allowed exceptions, including some criminal-warrant operations and work with partner agencies. AP said the account came from people familiar with the decision, and no publicly released agencywide written order was identified.

On July 15, Trump publicly said ICE should continue making traffic stops, calling them an important enforcement tool. AP reported that it was not clear whether ICE had reversed course and resumed most stops. Trump’s public statement did not, by itself, establish that any internal operational guidance had been formally rescinded.

That distinction matters to drivers, communities and officers because the difference between a pause, a limited-stop policy and a full resumption affects how encounters are initiated and what supervisors are expected to approve.

The two shootings are still open cases

The Maine Attorney General’s Office said the Biddeford shooting involved federal law enforcement and was being investigated with assistance from Biddeford, Saco, the Maine State Police and federal authorities. The office said the Enforcement Removal Operations officer was placed on leave, as is standard protocol in police-involved shootings.

The state’s preliminary account said the officer was conducting an enforcement operation related to a final order of removal when the subject allegedly attempted to flee in a vehicle in the direction of the officer. The attorney general’s office said the investigation was active and that it would provide updates as appropriate. That account was not a final conclusion about the shooting.

In Houston, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Texas said its office, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and state and local partners were investigating Salgado’s death. The office described its account as preliminary. It said investigators believed the driver shifted the van into reverse and then forward while an officer was partially inside or immediately next to it, and that one officer fired a shot. The office emphasized that it was drawing no decisive conclusions while the investigation continued.

The officers involved reportedly did not have body-camera footage available from the encounters. That absence does not establish wrongdoing, but it removes a potentially important contemporaneous record that could help investigators and the public compare competing accounts about vehicle movement, warnings, positioning and the use of force.

What lawmakers were told about discipline

The oversight questions widened after a July 22 closed-door House Homeland Security Committee briefing on body cameras, vehicle stops and training. Rep. Seth Magaziner, a Rhode Island Democrat, said lawmakers were told ICE had received 56 excessive-force complaints. Of those, 32 had been cleared, one officer had been referred for disciplinary action and no discipline had yet been imposed. The remaining cases were still under investigation, according to reporting by The Washington Post.

Those figures came from lawmakers after the briefing, not from a publicly released independent audit or final congressional finding. The Department of Homeland Security said ICE officers who violate agency policy are held accountable, receive de-escalation training and take an annual refresher course on use-of-force policies. DHS also said officers operate in dangerous circumstances and use training to protect themselves, fellow officers and the public.

Lawmakers also said current vehicle-stop guidance was verbal. According to Magaziner, officers were told to make stops only when there was no other alternative and to use lights and sirens. The Post reported that lawmakers were told some officers who had completed a shorter training curriculum would be retrained, although members said they did not receive clear answers about how many officers were affected or how the retraining would work.

The absence of a clearly published directive has made it harder to determine how the reported pause and Trump’s later statement fit together operationally.

The standards question

The Justice Department’s use-of-force policy provides federal context, but it is not necessarily a complete or directly controlling ICE policy. The Justice Manual says DOJ officers may use deadly force only when they reasonably believe a person poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury. It also says deadly force may not be used solely to prevent escape or solely to disable a moving vehicle.

Under that DOJ policy, firearms generally may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless a person in the vehicle is threatening someone with deadly force or the vehicle is being operated in a way that threatens death or serious injury and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appears available. The policy also addresses warnings, de-escalation, intervention, medical aid and training.

Whether those provisions apply to either shooting will depend on the evidence, the governing ICE rules and the findings of the separate investigations. The DOJ policy should not be treated as a substitute for confirming the specific rules and training that governed the ICE officers involved.

What to watch next

Administration officials have indicated that body cameras were being shipped to ICE offices, with nationwide deployment expected by the end of August. Cameras could improve documentation, but accountability will also depend on activation requirements, footage retention, access, independent review and disciplinary decisions.

The next consequential developments will be a written clarification of vehicle-stop policy, investigative reports, the release of video or other evidence, camera deployment, retraining directives and any formal disciplinary decisions. Until then, the central national question remains unresolved: Were ICE vehicle stops actually paused, limited or resumed after the two shootings?

Sources

• Associated Press: ICE vehicle-stop suspension and Trump’s response
• Maine Attorney General: Biddeford shooting investigation
• U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Texas: Houston shooting
• The Washington Post: ICE complaints and discipline briefing

The planned extension would keep Amentum Services operating one of ICE’s largest detention facilities despite a June 9, 2026, report from the Government Accountability Office that found avoidable spending, missing safeguards and failures in federal oversight. The extension is a planned procurement action, not a final award extending beyond September 30, 2027.

The potential $776 million would come on top of Amentum’s initial $452 million contract, AP reported. ICE said relocating people in immigration detention or changing contractors could create operational, legal and humanitarian risks, including a possible gap in services.

What changed at Camp East Montana

Camp East Montana opened in August 2025 at Fort Bliss as ICE’s largest immigration detention facility to date, with capacity for about 5,000 detained noncitizens. The Army awarded and initially administered a facility-services contract valued at up to $1.3 billion before transferring contract administration to ICE in October 2025.

GAO found that the accelerated schedule affected planning and acquisition decisions. The Army and ICE used a contracting vehicle that had not previously been used for detention services and selected an initial contractor without prior detention-services experience. ICE contracting officials also said the contract requirements did not fully align with the agency’s detention standards.

ICE later terminated the initial contract for convenience and selected a new contractor. The planned Amentum extension concerns that newer operating arrangement and was not evaluated by GAO’s June 9 audit, which focused primarily on the facility’s acquisition, opening and operations during the period covered by its review.

How GAO calculated the waste

GAO found that the government began paying for guards, medical services, transportation, meals and other operations on August 1, 2025, even though no detained noncitizens arrived until August 16. The audit estimated up to $11.5 million in costs for services paid before the facility housed anyone.

The contract also used fixed meal pricing tied to the facility’s maximum capacity rather than its actual population. GAO estimated about $423,000 in unnecessary meal costs between August 16 and September 30, 2025, followed by about $7.1 million more from October 1, 2025, through March 12, 2026.

At the end of February 2026, the facility held about 1,600 people but continued paying the full meal cost for 5,000. GAO said tiered pricing and reduced operating status for unused housing units could avoid similar costs at Camp East Montana and future facilities.

Safety and access problems

GAO found that Camp East Montana opened without several features required by ICE standards or the contract. Those gaps included missing perimeter cameras, inadequate outdoor recreation space and unavailable areas for attorney and family visitation.

The audit also cited reported problems involving medical services, disability accommodations, sanitation, classification and weapons control. In January 2026, a security guard lost a loaded firearm, which had not been recovered as of March, according to an ICE report reviewed by GAO.

GAO said ICE did not conduct the required pre-occupancy inspection before housing detained noncitizens at the facility. The watchdog also noted that its review identified selected gaps and did not determine whether all cited problems remained unresolved after its September 2025 site visit. GAO referred some concerns to the Defense Department’s inspector general for further investigation.

Separately, AP reported allegations from Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union concerning treatment and conditions at the facility. Those allegations are distinct from the findings in GAO’s audit.

Why the extension matters nationally

Camp East Montana is part of a broader detention expansion. GAO reported that ICE’s average daily population of detained noncitizens increased 71 percent, from 39,314 on January 20, 2025, to 67,204 on April 1, 2026, according to ICE data. The number of authorized ICE detention facilities rose from 134 to 239 over the same period, an increase of 78 percent.

AP separately reported that an ICE planning document describes a proposed $38.3 billion effort to increase capacity to 92,600 beds. Those figures describe a reported plan, not a completed buildout. ICE data may be revised and may be reported with a lag.

The national accountability question is whether ICE can add detention capacity while correcting the contracting and inspection weaknesses GAO identified at one of its largest facilities.

What remains unresolved

GAO issued four recommendations. Two were directed to ICE, one to the Army and one to the Department of Homeland Security. They cover tiered contract pricing, controls to ensure required pre-occupancy inspections, and lessons-learned reviews of the Camp East Montana acquisition by the Army and DHS.

All four recommendations remained open in GAO’s latest status update. In May 2026, DHS said it expected to shift the Camp East Montana contract to tiered pricing by the end of 2026. DHS also said ICE and the department’s Office of the Chief Readiness Support Officer would assess the acquisition and capture lessons for future actions. GAO said its monitoring would continue.

The next indicators will be whether those changes are implemented, whether the Amentum extension proceeds as described in the procurement notice, and whether future ICE facilities receive required inspections before detained noncitizens are housed there.

Sources

• Government Accountability Office Camp East Montana audit
• GAO recommendation-status record
• Associated Press contract-extension report

The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona entered the stipulated stay order July 8 in Arizona v. Mullin, case No. 2:26-cv-02857. The order bars detention operations and physical conversion work at the proposed facility, while leaving the project’s ultimate fate unresolved.

What the July 8 order prohibits

While the stay remains in effect, federal agencies may not detain people at the proposed Surprise facility. They also may not begin construction, demolition, retrofitting or other physical work to convert the warehouse for detention use.

The order stays the litigation and defers briefing on Arizona’s request for a preliminary injunction. It does not cancel the project or decide whether the facility can eventually open.

The order allows certain activities that do not constitute physical conversion, including maintenance, security, planning, engineering and permitting work, according to the case summary.

Environmental review must come first

Before the project can advance, the federal government must complete additional environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act. The process is expected to produce a final environmental assessment and associated decision document, or an environmental impact statement and record of decision if federal officials determine that an EIS is required.

The July 8 order does not say the review is complete. Instead, it keeps detention operations and the warehouse conversion paused until the required review and decision documents are completed.

Reports are due every 60 days

The federal government must file a status report with the court 60 days after the order and every 60 days afterward until the environmental review is complete. Because the order was entered July 8, the first report is due September 6, 2026, unless the court changes the schedule.

The reports must track the environmental-review process through completion of the final environmental assessment and decision document, or completion of an environmental impact statement and record of decision if an EIS is required.

Arizona has reserved the right to challenge the adequacy of the completed review. That would be a later legal step; the current order does not determine whether the federal review will be sufficient.

The proposed Surprise facility

The Arizona Attorney General’s Office identified the proposed site as a warehouse on Sweetwater Avenue in Surprise. The state’s April complaint said federal officials purchased a vacant industrial warehouse in the city for approximately $70 million and intended to convert it into an immigration detention facility.

Arizona’s complaint referenced capacity estimates ranging from 500 to 1,500 detainees, while noting that reports differed. That range is not a final operating capacity.

The complaint also raised concerns about water, wastewater, roads, emergency services, nearby schools and a chemical-storage facility. Those are allegations made by the state, not findings by the court.

For Surprise residents, the immediate consequence is that no one may be detained at the proposed facility and physical conversion work cannot begin while the court-ordered pause remains in effect. The next major developments will be the federal government’s environmental-review filings and the court’s response to them.

The project remains proposed rather than canceled. Its future will depend on the environmental review, the resulting federal decision documents and any additional court challenges.

Sources

• Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse — Arizona v. Mullin docket and case summary
• Arizona Attorney General's Office — Surprise ICE facility stipulation
• Bloomberg Law — Proposed Arizona ICE Facility Shelved by Court Pending Review

The extension could add up to $776 million in potential federal spending, according to a procurement notice published on SAM.gov. That would come on top of the $452 million initial contract Amentum received in March 2026.

The figures describe potential contract value, not money already obligated or paid. If the proposed extension proceeds, Amentum’s potential compensation for operating the facility from March 2026 through September 2027 would exceed $1.2 billion.

Why ICE says it wants to extend the contract

ICE is pursuing the extension without a new competitive bidding process. The agency said relocating detainees would be impractical because other detention facilities have limited available capacity.

The procurement justification also cites the facility’s proprietary infrastructure and the costs and risks of changing contractors. ICE said replacing Amentum would require finding new workers and could create duplicative expenses. The agency warned that a lapse in contract coverage could disrupt detention operations and create safety, legal and humanitarian risks.

Camp East Montana is located at Fort Bliss, an Army installation near El Paso. It is a federal detention operation, not a facility operated or controlled by the City of El Paso.

Closure calls and condition allegations

Democratic members of Congress and advocacy organizations have called for Camp East Montana to close. Their demands follow scrutiny of conditions at the facility, which opened in August 2025.

A report from Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union alleged that detainees were beaten, denied medical care, housed in unsanitary conditions and served inedible meals. Those claims are allegations from the advocacy groups and should not be presented as proven findings in every instance.

The Associated Press reported separately that federal agency reviews identified unsafe detention conditions and questioned spending by the Army and ICE on services described as unnecessary. AP also reported that at least three Camp East Montana detainees have died.

Amentum spokesperson Chanel Mann referred questions to ICE and the Department of Homeland Security, which had not immediately returned AP’s requests for comment.

What the proposal means for El Paso

If the planned contract action proceeds, federal detention operations near El Paso would continue through Sept. 30, 2027. The proposal also keeps federal spending, contractor oversight and detainee welfare at the center of local congressional and public debate.

The SAM.gov notice supports the proposed extension and ICE’s justification for avoiding a new competition. A final contract modification would be needed to confirm whether the extension is awarded and how much money is ultimately obligated or paid.

Sources

• SAM.gov contract notice for Camp East Montana extension
• Associated Press: ICE extends Camp East Montana no-bid contract
• The Washington Post: ICE extends no-bid contract for Camp East Montana

The discussion in Nevada concerned the roles of the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles, local law-enforcement agencies and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE. Speakers also raised concerns about whether local agencies can assume immigration-enforcement functions without explicit authorization from the Legislature.

The gathering did not establish that lawmakers adopted a bill, prohibition or other specific policy on July 14. It instead placed a series of enforcement, transparency and civil-liberties issues before state lawmakers as advocates pressed for a stronger state response.

Records and state-agency oversight

One focus was the Nevada DMV’s handling of records concerning communications with ICE. The ACLU of Nevada has litigated to obtain access to those records, according to the report.

That records dispute was part of a broader call for scrutiny of how Nevada institutions interact with federal immigration authorities. The report identifies the DMV as a directly affected state institution and describes advocates’ concerns about access to immigration-related records.

The account does not provide the contents of the DMV communications at issue or state the outcome of the ACLU of Nevada’s litigation. It also does not establish a new records policy adopted by the DMV or the Legislature during the July 14 discussion.

Questions over 287(g) agreements

Speakers also questioned local law-enforcement participation in agreements under Section 287(g), a federal program arrangement discussed in the report as one that can broaden immigration-enforcement activity by police agencies.

Under the arrangement described in the report, police may issue civil immigration warrants and hold people for federal pickup for up to 48 hours beyond their scheduled release. That additional hold was presented as a central concern for advocates and legal experts addressing lawmakers.

The report did not specify how many Nevada law-enforcement agencies participate in 287(g) agreements. Nor did it establish that every local agency cooperates with ICE. It also did not report that Nevada lawmakers formally rejected, prohibited or otherwise changed the use of such agreements on July 14.

Advocates press concerns about federal practices

The UNLV Immigration Clinic was represented in criticism of federal immigration practices and of compliance with court orders. Immigrant-rights advocates also urged lawmakers to confront federal detention and deportation tactics.

Those statements are advocacy and legal-expert positions reported from the discussion, rather than independent findings that every characterization of federal conduct was established in court. The source packet does not provide a specific court order, a case outcome or an independently verified account of each allegation raised by speakers.

Still, the discussion underscored an active conflict over the boundary between federal immigration enforcement and the responsibilities of Nevada institutions. The immediate result documented by the report was that lawmakers were urged to examine state cooperation, access to records and local enforcement arrangements that may affect people facing immigration detention or deportation.

No specific legislative action identified

No next legislative vote, hearing date, bill number or agency deadline was identified in the report. The known next step is therefore limited: the issues raised remain before Nevada lawmakers and the institutions named in the discussion, without a documented July 14 decision resolving them.

For Nevada residents and organizations concerned with immigration enforcement, the policy debate centers on practical state and local choices: what records can be examined, what information is available about interactions with ICE, and whether local law-enforcement agencies should take on functions connected to federal immigration enforcement.

Rojas Pliego was one of three passengers in a work van during the July 7 fatal shooting of Lorenzo Salgado Araujo in Houston. Salgado Araujo was shot by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer during a traffic stop involving federal agents. Rojas Pliego has been described in court filings and news reports as a potential witness.

The release settles an immediate custody issue, but it does not resolve the underlying shooting investigation, the government’s immigration case or the competing accounts of what happened on July 7.

What the judge ordered

Ellison ordered ICE to release Rojas Pliego within 48 hours. The judge had previously barred the government from deporting him while his habeas petition was pending and ordered that he not be transferred outside the Southern District of Texas without first seeking and receiving the court’s permission.

Under the later release order, immigration officials must provide advance notice and hold a pre-detention hearing if they seek to detain Rojas Pliego again. That gives his lawyers an opportunity to challenge a new detention before it occurs.

The protections are specific to Rojas Pliego’s case. They do not automatically apply to every person held in immigration detention and do not establish a nationwide rule governing ICE arrests.

Why Rojas Pliego was detained

Rojas Pliego had been in ICE custody since the July 7 shooting. The Texas Tribune reported that he was held at the Montgomery ICE Processing Center in Conroe and that his lawyers argued he was neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community.

He and another passenger disputed the government’s account of the shooting in statements submitted to the court. The Department of Homeland Security said shortly after the incident that Salgado Araujo had used his vehicle in an attempt to strike an ICE officer and that the officer fired in self-defense. The passengers gave a different account, saying the officers were positioned beside the van rather than in front of or behind it.

Those conflicting accounts remain allegations and counterclaims. Ellison’s detention and due-process rulings did not determine whether the ICE officer acted lawfully or establish criminal responsibility for the shooting.

The government sought a stay

Federal prosecutors asked for a stay pending appeal around the time Rojas Pliego was released. The government argued that Ellison’s ruling conflicted with decisions in other immigration cases.

As of the release, the request for a stay had not stopped the order from taking effect. The legal dispute therefore continued after Rojas Pliego left detention, with an appeal and additional court filings still to watch.

Why the case matters beyond Houston

The case offers a closely watched example of how federal courts can review immigration detention during an active enforcement campaign. It also raises practical questions about whether people who may have information about a federal use-of-force incident can remain available to investigators and lawyers while immigration proceedings continue.

For advocates, the ruling underscores the role of habeas petitions and constitutional due process in challenging detention. For the government, the appeal may test how much authority immigration officials have to detain a noncitizen who has not been convicted of a crime but remains subject to immigration enforcement.

The next developments are likely to include an appellate decision on the requested stay, further filings in Rojas Pliego’s case and possible movement in similar petitions filed by other passengers from the van. None of those developments should be read as a final finding about the shooting unless investigators or a court makes one.

The case matters nationally because it shows how an individual detention challenge can prompt a federal court to impose specific limits on deportation, transfer and renewed detention while the dispute is litigated.

Sources

• U.S. District Court order in Rojas Pliego detention case
• Witness to a fatal ICE shooting in Houston is released from immigration detention
• Judge orders immigration officials to free key witness in deadly Texas ICE shooting

The agreement gives a limited group of Post Falls officers specified immigration-enforcement functions under ICE supervision. Four officers and one captain are expected to complete 40 hours of training. The available reporting does not say that the training has been completed.

What Post Falls agreed to

According to the City of Post Falls, participating officers will be able to identify removable noncitizens with criminal charges or convictions during routine operations, serve certain administrative immigration warrants in jail settings and help transfer people into federal custody.

Regional reporting says the department will use the program’s warrant-service model. That model is intended to give certified officers access to federal immigration information and allow them to act on an ICE warrant or detainer when one is identified during or after a routine police contact. An ICE warrant or detainer is an immigration-enforcement document or request; it is not the same thing as a criminal arrest warrant issued by a state or local court.

The police department has said the agreement is intended to improve coordination with federal authorities when officers encounter people who have criminal charges or convictions and may also be subject to immigration enforcement. City and police officials have presented the arrangement as a public-safety partnership focused on people they describe as criminal threats.

How the warrant-service model works

Under the announced arrangement, a trained officer may check a federal immigration database during or after a routine police contact. If the system shows an ICE warrant or detainer, the officer may be able to take additional action, including arresting the person under the federal authority delegated through the agreement and transporting the person to jail for transfer through the federal process.

The warrant-service model is narrower than the task-force model. Under a task-force agreement, local officers may receive broader authority to investigate immigration status as part of their routine police duties. Post Falls officials and local reporting have described this agreement as a warrant-service arrangement, not as authority for separate immigration patrols, door-to-door operations or general immigration enforcement by the entire department.

The agreement also does not mean every Post Falls police officer will receive immigration-enforcement authority. The approved reporting identifies four officers and one captain as the expected trainees.

What residents should watch

Post Falls police have said participating officers will remain subject to department policies and local supervision while performing the specified federal functions. ICE controls the federal program and provides the related oversight, while the city remains responsible for its officers and local policing standards.

The arrangement could affect how some residents experience routine traffic stops, arrests or jail bookings, particularly when an ICE warrant or detainer appears in a federal database. It also raises practical questions about officer time, training, custody transfers, jail coordination and how the department will track the work.

Those effects are not yet documented as local outcomes. The city announcement and local reporting do not establish changes in arrest totals, staffing levels, jail costs or resident behavior. The city’s announcement says training for select officers will come at no additional cost to the city beyond standard participation, while regional reporting says the department will front training costs during normal work hours and ICE is expected to cover computers, system access and related IT expenses.

Key developments to watch include completion of the officers’ training, publication of operating procedures, any later changes in city costs or staffing, and data showing how often the authority is used.

National background from the Associated Press describes three broad 287(g) models: jail services, warrant service and task-force enforcement. The warrant-service model is more limited on paper than task-force authority, but implementation will determine how the Post Falls agreement operates for residents, officers and local jail partners.

Sources

• City of Post Falls: Police Department Joins 287(g) Program
• The Spokesman-Review: Post Falls signs agreement with ICE
• ICE: 287(g) Program

The action is a proposed no-bid extension, not a completed award. ICE’s contracting notice seeks to continue the existing contractor relationship without opening a new competitive procurement process.

What the proposal would add

Amentum’s initial contract was valued at $452 million for operations beginning in March 2026. If ICE completes the proposed extension, the company’s potential contract value for operating Camp East Montana from March 2026 through September 2027 would exceed $1.2 billion.

ICE’s justification says moving detainees to other facilities would be impractical because of limited bed space. The agency also says changing contractors would require replacing Amentum’s existing infrastructure and workforce, creating additional costs and operational risks.

Those arguments explain the proposed procurement approach. They do not establish that the extension has been approved or that the additional $776 million has been spent.

Why the facility is under scrutiny

A June 9, 2026 report from the Government Accountability Office found significant problems involving the facility’s planning, contracting and oversight. GAO said the Army and ICE accelerated the acquisition process and used a contracting approach that contributed to operational challenges.

The report identified as much as $11.5 million in payments for services during the first two weeks of the contract, before detained noncitizens were housed at the facility. GAO also found that the government paid for meals and other services that were not needed when the population was below the facility’s capacity.

GAO separately documented gaps involving detention standards, medical services, sanitation, security cameras, recreation space, attorney and family visitation, disability accommodations and classification procedures. The report said ICE did not conduct the required pre-occupancy inspection before the facility began housing detainees.

GAO made four recommendations, including adding contract provisions that adjust costs when detention populations change and creating controls to ensure new facilities meet applicable standards before opening. The Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense agreed with the recommendations.

DHS has also disputed some earlier public reporting about conditions at Camp East Montana. Its September 2025 response described that reporting as false. That response predates the June 2026 GAO review and does not replace the audit’s findings, but it shows that accounts of conditions at the facility have been contested.

A national detention-policy question

Camp East Montana is one facility, but the contracting decision reflects a broader expansion of federal immigration detention. A Senate hearing record says the administration directed ICE to increase detention capacity as enforcement operations intensified and identified Fort Bliss among several Defense Department locations for emergency detention operations.

For taxpayers, the proposed extension raises questions about how quickly large detention contracts are awarded, whether no-bid renewals provide enough accountability and whether agencies are applying lessons from earlier facilities. For detained people and their families, the unresolved issue is whether the operational and care problems identified by GAO have been corrected.

What to watch next

The next key step is whether ICE finalizes the extension and publishes an award or related contract modification. Watch also for new oversight conditions, congressional requests for information, follow-up GAO work and evidence that ICE has addressed the deficiencies identified in the June report.

Sources

• SAM.gov contract-extension justification
• Government Accountability Office report
• Associated Press report
• Senate hearing record on detention expansion

The ruling is not a final decision on the merits. But it is a concrete, day-to-day compliance order with clear operational requirements that detainees, families, and advocates can track.

What the July 16 order requires right now at Adelanto

The court’s preliminary injunction directs ICE/DHS to improve conditions in multiple categories, including:

• Clean potable drinking water available on a 24-hour basis.
• Meals that are nutritious, sanitary, and provide sufficient calories.
• Daily sanitation plus free access to soap/hygiene products.
• Mold identification and remediation.
• Restroom and shower privacy consistent with detainees’ safety needs.
• Clean, temperature-appropriate clothing and clean bedding (mattresses, pillows, and blankets).
• Outdoor recreation with individual yard access for at least four hours per day and seven days per week (unless the order permits limits only for documented security risks).

Operational rules affecting detainees and families

The injunction also includes operational requirements related to visitation, including:

• Visits during business hours.
• Visit limits are not supposed to be automatic unless tied to operational interference or capacity constraints.
• Restroom access during visits without an automatic cancellation approach.
• Physical contact allowed absent a documented security risk.

For families and advocates, the practical question is whether the facility treats restrictions as tied to documented security needs—or uses broad cutoffs.

The 14-day deadline: a medical-and-disability remedial plan

The court ordered ICE/DHS to develop and file a comprehensive remedial plan within 14 calendar days of the July 16 order.

The remedial plan requirements break into two major parts:

• Medical care systems, including health intake screening for new detainees within eight hours of arrival, continuity of pre-detention treatment/medications, identification and treatment (and where appropriate segregation) for communicable diseases, access to appropriate levels of care (from primary through tertiary), timely diagnostics with follow-up, and continuous provision of ordered medications with immediate explanation of any medication changes.
• Disability accommodations under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, including systems to identify and track qualifying disabilities and reasonable accommodations that enable participation in programs, plus disability-rights materials provided in appropriate ways (including translation when needed) and procedures for detainees to request accommodations.

Two independent monitors and monthly reporting

The injunction also calls for two independent third-party monitors during the litigation—one focused on medical care and disability accommodations and one focused on overall conditions. The monitors provide monthly reports as the case proceeds, giving the public a structured way to assess compliance progress.

What to watch next

• The 14-calendar-day deadline for filing the required medical-care and disability-accommodations remedial plan.
• Monitor selection and appointment, which will determine how independent oversight is implemented.
• Subsequent court steps and compliance reporting, including whether required systems—like medication continuity, intake screening, and disability accommodation tracking—are actually put in place.

Because this is a preliminary injunction, more court activity is expected. But the July 16 order already provides a detailed checklist of what ICE/DHS must deliver at Adelanto during the litigation’s next phases.

Sources

• U.S. District Court (Central District of California) order granting renewed preliminary injunction in L.T. v. ICE/DHS (Filed July 16, 2026) — Court order PDF
• LAist / public-media report (July 16, 2026) — explains what the order changes at Adelanto
• California Attorney General press release (June 12, 2026) — state-law context on Adelanto conditions
• Los Angeles Times report (July 16, 2026) — independent reporting on the injunction’s requirements and responses

The episode has turned into a church-state flashpoint because it put immigration enforcement next to a house of worship. Bishop Daniel Flores of Brownsville called the circumstances “wildly disturbing” and said protocols that allow a religious sister to be detained while walking to church should be reformed.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops says its 2026 religious-liberty report treats enforcement at or near churches as a national concern. The report says DHS rescinded prior guidance that had required headquarters approval before immigration enforcement in or near protected areas such as churches, schools and hospitals, and it warns that fear of enforcement can affect worship attendance.

For now, this is one documented incident, not proof of a formal nationwide policy change. What to watch next is whether ICE or DHS clarify how enforcement should work near houses of worship.

Sources

• AP News report on the Texas nun detention
• KSAT report on the detention and release
• Texas Public Radio report on the Rio Grande Valley nun
• Global Sisters Report follow-up on Bishop Flores
• USCCB 2026 Religious Liberty Annual Report

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel’s federal actions tracker says the court held status conferences on May 20, May 27, and June 9. Another conference is set for July 1, and the judge has scheduled a preliminary injunction hearing for July 29. Construction is paused until at least July 31.

That means the immediate question for Romulus residents is not whether the site has been approved. It is whether the pause survives the next two court dates. The case is still active, and the June 9 conference was procedural, not a final ruling on the merits.

The State of Michigan and the City of Romulus filed suit March 24, arguing that the federal government’s plan to turn the commercial warehouse into a detention facility should be blocked. In the complaint, state lawyers said the warehouse was purchased in February and that the proposal would convert the building into a detention center for about 500 detainees. The filing also raised concerns about traffic, nearby schools, sewer capacity, floodplain issues, and the strain the project could put on public safety resources.

An earlier floodplain letter from the attorney general’s office said ICE’s notice covered the warehouse at 7525 Cogswell Street and that floodplain-related permits would be required before construction could move ahead. The letter said ICE had not applied for those permits or started that process at the time.

For residents, the practical effect is straightforward: the warehouse is not moving into construction while the pause remains in place. But the dispute is not over. If the court extends the hold or grants an injunction, the site could stay frozen longer. If not, the next question becomes when, and under what conditions, work could resume.

Romulus officials have also kept a dedicated facility updates area on the city website, underscoring how closely the issue is being watched locally. After July 29, the next update may determine whether this remains a paused proposal or becomes a construction project again.

Sources

• Michigan Attorney General federal actions tracker