- ICE agents conducted high-profile arrests inside federal and immigration courthouses, sparking significant legal controversy.
- A 2026 interim policy permits arrests in non-public areas of courthouses with security collaboration.
- Fear of enforcement has led to surging missed hearing rates, reaching 79% in some jurisdictions.
(LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA) — ICE carried out arrests inside or near courthouses while no official DOJ record has been identified acknowledging that the agency was mistakenly instructed to arrest people in immigration courts.
That gap sits at the center of a dispute over courthouse enforcement. Reported incidents and public commentary point to confusion over whether any such directive existed informally, was misunderstood, or was inferred from broader enforcement changes, but the difference matters because a documented written policy is not the same thing as a reported field practice or a public allegation about what agents were told to do.
Courthouse arrests have become a flashpoint because they put enforcement activity next to legal proceedings that already determine whether people can remain in the United States. For people with pending cases, the distinction between a formal policy and scattered practice can shape how they assess the risks of appearing before immigration courts.
Recent courthouse incidents
Recent incidents have sharpened that debate. ICE has conducted arrests in settings that include federal criminal courtrooms and immigration courthouses under January 2026 interim guidance allowing such actions in non-public courthouse areas with court security collaboration.
One of the most closely watched cases unfolded in downtown Los Angeles on March 20, 2026. Plainclothes ICE agents removed a criminal defendant from a federal courtroom after a pretrial hearing without initially identifying themselves or showing a warrant, surprising U.S. District Judge David O. Carter and attorneys.
That episode stood out because it happened in a federal criminal courtroom rather than at an arrest outside the building. It became part of a wider argument over what courthouse operations now permit and whether enforcement agents have taken broader authority from policy changes than any written DOJ or ICE directive publicly reflects.
Another reported case involved Colombian national Barros in Utah. ICE detained him inside an immigration courthouse after his case dismissal, even though his Special Immigrant Juvenile Status had been approved by a Utah juvenile district court judge.
Derek Crayk, Barros’ attorney, described the detention as transitioning his client to expedited removal to maintain custody. ICE did not respond to requests for comment on the Utah courthouse operation or on arrests involving approved Special Immigrant Juvenile Status holders.
Neither the Los Angeles arrest nor the Utah detention, by itself, proves that DOJ or ICE issued a nationwide instruction to arrest people in immigration courts. What the incidents do show is that enforcement actions in and around courthouses have moved from a theoretical concern to documented events, feeding a broader debate over how far agents can go and under what authority.
Impact on immigration hearings
That backdrop has had consequences beyond the individual arrests. Reported courthouse enforcement has helped fuel a nationwide surge in missed immigration hearings in 2026, as migrants and lawyers weigh whether showing up to court could expose them to detention by ICE.
In immigration proceedings, a missed hearing can bring immediate consequences. An in absentia removal order is an automatic deportation order entered when a person does not appear, and it can bar asylum relief unless a motion to reopen is filed promptly with supporting evidence such as ICE threats near courthouses.
Dallas offers one stark example of how quickly the consequences can spread when attendance breaks down. In absentia removal orders reached 79% of Dallas immigration cases by late 2025, a figure cited as showing how fear around courthouse enforcement can carry through the immigration court system.
The pressure on attendance places lawyers and families in a hard position. Appearing in court is often required to preserve claims, yet reported arrests near courtrooms can make the trip itself feel risky, and any later effort to reopen a case generally depends on quick action and evidence.
Legal and courtroom concerns
Those concerns have drawn unusually blunt reactions from legal professionals. Ann Jenness, a defense attorney in the Los Angeles case, called the courtroom arrest “a whole new level of assault on our criminal justice system.”
Her concern went beyond one defendant. Jenness said the arrest could deter witnesses and defendants, tying a single courthouse operation to larger questions about whether people will still trust the court process if they think a hearing could end with detention in the hallway or courtroom.
Judge Carter’s response captured another layer of uncertainty. He assumed an ICE warrant existed, but he also expressed uncertainty about whether one did, highlighting how even a federal judge was left trying to sort out the legal basis for what had happened in his courtroom.
That uncertainty matters for courtroom administration as much as for the target of an arrest. Judges and lawyers depend on predictable rules inside court facilities, and confusion over whether agents have warrants, when they must identify themselves, and where they can act can disrupt proceedings that are supposed to resolve criminal or immigration matters on the record.
Broader ICE policy fight
A separate policy fight has widened the legal debate beyond courthouses. A May 12, 2025 ICE memo, made public via whistleblower, authorized warrantless home entries for immigration arrests using administrative warrants such as Form I-205.
Critics say that memo marked a break from earlier DHS practice. They argue it raises Fourth Amendment concerns because administrative warrants lack the neutral magistrate review required for criminal warrants.
That legal question is distinct from what happened in Los Angeles and Utah. Home-entry authority concerns when ICE can enter a private residence without a judicial warrant, while courthouse arrests raise questions about enforcement inside government buildings where proceedings are underway.
No direct link ties the May 12, 2025 memo to the reported courthouse arrests. Even so, the memo has become part of the wider argument over whether enforcement boundaries shifted in ways that agents, lawyers and affected families are still trying to understand.
January 2026 interim guidance
The most concrete policy language tied to courthouse operations comes from January 2026 interim guidance. That guidance allowed arrests in non-public courthouse areas with court security collaboration, giving ICE a documented policy basis for at least some courthouse activity.
How far that guidance extends in practice remains contested. Lawyers and advocates have cited it as enabling operations that once would have drawn greater scrutiny, while the broader claim that agents were instructed to arrest people in immigration courts generally remains unverified by any official DOJ record identified so far.
That distinction has become central to the public debate. Documented policy language can be examined on its terms, but claims about broader arrest instructions carry different weight unless they are backed by written orders, named officials, or records that clearly show what agents were told to do.
For families and attorneys following immigration courts, the result is an atmosphere shaped by both policy and uncertainty. Confirmed incidents show that courthouse enforcement is not hypothetical, yet the leap from those incidents to a blanket DOJ or ICE instruction remains unsupported by any identified official record.
That leaves court users navigating two realities at once. One is the written policy environment, which since January 2026 has opened the door to arrests in some non-public courthouse spaces with security collaboration; the other is a field reality in which isolated but high-profile operations can affect behavior far beyond the people directly detained.
The effect reaches into hearing rooms, attorney offices and waiting areas. Fear of ICE presence can mean missed court dates, and missed court dates can trigger in absentia removal orders that shut off asylum relief unless lawyers move quickly and produce evidence to reopen the case.
Los Angeles and Utah have therefore become reference points in a much larger argument over due process and enforcement boundaries. One involved plainclothes agents taking a defendant from a federal courtroom after a pretrial hearing; the other involved detention inside an immigration courthouse after a case dismissal despite approved Special Immigrant Juvenile Status.
Taken together, those events have intensified scrutiny of how ICE, immigration courts and DOJ policy intersect. They have also kept attention fixed on a narrower but unresolved question: not whether courthouse arrests have happened, but whether anyone ever issued a broader instruction telling agents to make them in immigration courts as a matter of course.
