On December 24, Federal Judge Casey Pitts halted policies that allowed Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to arrest individuals attending routine immigration court hearings. The ruling applies to the San Francisco area of responsibility, which includes Bakersfield.
Jordan Wells, Program Director for Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights in San Francisco, explained that, leading to the class action, they noticed many people being detained when attending routine appointments at the ICE courts with the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). He stated that originally they were filing cases on an individual basis, but as more cases were filed, they filed the class action.
The lawsuit has three plaintiffs, three women who were either arrested or almost arrested at routine appointments.
Carmen Aracely Pablo Sequen, an asylum seeker from Guatemala, was arrested when leaving a routine hearing. Ligia Garcia is an asylum seeker from Colombia who was also leaving a hearing when arrested. Yulisa Alvarado Ambrocio is also an asylum seeker from Guatemala who was leaving a hearing; however, she was in the middle of breastfeeding her infant when ICE attempted to arrest her.
“Two attorneys that just happened to be on site that day kind of negotiated for her. But she was told to come back,” Wells stated she was told to come back two weeks later. “It was likely at that point she was going to be arrested if it hadn’t been for the court order.”
In a press release, Pablo Sequen said that day haunts her.
“I fled persecution to seek safety, only to find myself arrested in the courthouse, the one place I was told to trust. The terror of that day has haunted me. This decision means I can finally focus on my asylum case, not on the ICE officers who might be waiting for me outside the courtroom door,” said Sequen.
All three women were granted a temporary restraining order that required the release of Pablo Sequen and Garcia.
According to the ruling from Pitts, President Donald Trump revoked the guidance in place for civil immigration enforcement priorities, leading to an increase in these types of arrests. The ruling explains that several immigration judges and attorneys in San Francisco had either not seen these arrests happening at the courts or had not seen them often until May of 2025, when an executive order from Trump in January was finalized.
The ruling states that the new guidance says the arrests at the court will generally target people who are a national security or public safety threat, along with those who have specific convictions or are gang members, but the ruling explained that, unlike previous guidelines, this executive order adds that the arrests are not limited to those who fall into the previous groups. It adds that other noncitizens in or near the courthouse may face civil immigration enforcement. EOIR made a similar change in January, no longer limiting the actions of ICE at the courthouses.
Wells stated that the EOIR is supposed to be neutral and that they stepped out of their lane when assisting ICE in using courthouses as a site for mass arrests.
“So, the court pauses EOIR’s policy as well, and I think it’s important for people to understand that we’re living through a time where the immigration courts themselves are being weaponized within the deportation machinery, and they’re losing all semblance of neutrality. But this order at least puts a check on the immigration courts being used for mass arrests,” said Wells.
Wells stated that it’s a catch-22 situation that many people are facing.
“I mean, people are put into this, horrendous sort of catch-22, where they either show up and then they’re risking being shipped off to an ice detention center or they skip court and therefore, you know, lose their chance for their asylum case or other immigration case to be heard, by a immigration judge, which means that they won’t be able to remain in the country,” said Wells, explaining that these are the chilling effects the policies had on people and that some decide they can’t take the risk of showing up.
Part of Pitt’s decision to approve the barring of arrests was that the policies in place did not account for the chilling effects on those with appointments.
“The policies discuss the benefits of courthouse arrests to the government’s enforcement of immigration laws but do not directly address the concerns raised in earlier guidance concerning chilling effects, safety risks, and impacts on hearing attendance,” said Pitts in the ruling.
Pitts wrote that, according to an immigration attorney, since May, there has been a major decline in individuals showing up to hearings, including one day when none of the clients showed up. He explained that the government argued that the guidance addresses the chilling effect these policies would have on the community by making sure the actions are orderly and safe. However, Pitts states that the order of the arrest does not fix the situation.
“As plaintiffs explain (and as common sense suggests), it is the desire to avoid arrest entirely, not merely to avoid disorderly or disruptive arrests, that disincentivizes noncitizens from appearing in immigration court. In other words, as the declarations of immigration attorneys show, the chilling effect operates before noncitizens even get to the courthouse,” wrote Pitts in the ruling.
If someone is arrested at the courthouse while attending their meetings, Wells advises contacting the Rapid Response Networks. Then the attorneys for the class action will look into what happened and try to resolve any violations.
Wells also advises individuals to consult a lawyer, if possible, before appearing in immigration court, or to connect with available networks. The Rapid Response Network is available to accompany individuals to court for their appointments.
Magdalena Lopez, a volunteer with the Rapid Response Network in Kern County, stated that sometimes people do not have family that can attend the court due to fear that they may also be detained. So, the volunteer is able to keep the family updated on whether their family member was detained or not.
Understanding that when someone attends an appointment, they may not return home, Lopez advises the family on the importance of a family plan and provides a family packet to help them plan.
“Even though it’s super hard… having the plans in place before you even go to your appointment is a big one in case you can’t communicate with your family, you at least know well, okay, this is what we agreed on,” said Lopez.
She stated that in one case, the family member had health issues, so they agreed they’d want him to be deported instead of being incarcerated.
Another experience Lopez described was accompanying someone who was instructed to attend an appointment to update information, but who did not return. He was detained in a back office. Lopez stated that typically only lawyers are allowed inside; however, she was able to go speak to him and give him a jacket.
Lopez stated that this ruling is important because right now, people may attend their appointment and not make it home, or be too afraid to attend the appointment, and neither is a good option.
“You shouldn’t have to live that way, but when you don’t know if it’s just like, oh, we’re going to update your address or, hey, you’re never going to see your family ever again and you don’t know which is which because you haven’t done anything that’s going to warrant that, but with this administration, it just, it’s keeping people fearful,”
Lopez added that the people are afraid to do what should be simple tasks.
“It’s keeping them from doing simple tasks. That should just be one, two, done. And that hurts their case for them to stay here legally, which is, like I said, just a double- edged sword. You just keep going in the circle of like, well, if I don’t show up now, I do have a warrant, but if I show up, I might not come home, kind of a thing,” said Lopez.
The government recently motioned for the court to drop the case in response to the ruling; however, it was denied on December 29. Wells explained that the next steps will be trying to make this a nationwide ruling.
