Colorado Judge Limits ICE to warrantless arrests, requiring probable cause and flight risk

(COLORADO) A federal judge in Colorado has sharply limited how Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers can carry out warrantless arrests, ruling that agents may only detain undocumented immigrants without a judge’s order when they have probable cause to believe the person is in the country illegally and is also likely to flee before a warrant can be obtained.

Case background and ruling

U.S. District Senior Judge R. Brooke Jackson issued the decision on Tuesday, November 25, 2025, in a case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado and private attorneys on behalf of four immigrants, including asylum-seekers, who were arrested by ICE earlier this year without warrants and without any recorded review of their risk of escape.

Judge Jackson found that ICE’s prior practice of making warrantless arrests for suspected civil immigration violations, without an individualized assessment of flight risk, violated federal law and the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable seizures.

“The mere fact that someone may be in the United States without lawful status does not, by itself, give ICE power to arrest that person without a warrant,” Jackson wrote, stressing that agents must now show probable cause both of an immigration violation and of a real risk that the person will escape before a warrant can be issued.

Scope and class certification

The ruling:
– Applies statewide in Colorado to all past and future ICE arrests made without a judicial warrant and without a pre-arrest, individualized assessment of flight risk.
– Includes provisional class certification, extending protections beyond the four named plaintiffs to all similarly situated people who have been, or may be, seized by ICE in Colorado under the now-rejected approach to warrantless arrests.

What ICE must do now (new procedural requirements)

Under the order, ICE agents operating in Colorado must:

• Document the reasons for any warrantless arrest.
• Record the facts that gave them probable cause to believe a person:
  • Was in the country unlawfully, and
  • Was likely to flee before a warrant could be obtained.

This written record is intended to allow courts — and potentially class lawyers — to review whether agents are making individualized judgments rather than relying on broad assumptions about noncitizens.

Remedies for the named plaintiffs

For the four named plaintiffs, the judge ordered specific remedies:

These remedies, while narrow, represent a rare instance in which federal immigration enforcement actions inside a state have been not only halted but partly unwound by a court.

Reactions and likely next steps

• The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, criticized the ruling as an “activist decision” and indicated the federal government may appeal.
  • DHS officials argue limits on warrantless arrests could slow efforts to detain people with final deportation orders or serious criminal histories, especially during fast-moving field operations.
• Supporters of the lawsuit counter that the Constitution does not bend for convenience and note ICE still has broad enforcement tools, including:
  • Seeking civil arrest warrants, and
  • Prioritizing people with criminal records or recent border crossings.
• Advocates emphasize the practical change: officers in Colorado must now think carefully about flight risk and be prepared to explain, in writing, why any person was considered likely to flee.

Broader legal context

According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, Jackson’s order fits a broader national pattern in which federal judges have more closely scrutinized ICE practices during and after President Trump’s term. That period included internal documents and whistleblower reports about arrest targets, field quotas, and pressure on agents to increase removal numbers.

Courts in other regions have likewise examined how far immigration officers can go when stopping people at:
– Courthouses,
– Workplaces,
– Outside schools, and
– Other public settings.

Practical impact for people in Colorado

• The order does not grant legal status or general immunity from contact with immigration agents.
• It does give people in Colorado stronger grounds to challenge an arrest made on the street, at home, or at work if ICE cannot later show that the agents had:
  • Probable cause, and
  • A clear, documented basis for claiming the person was likely to flee before a warrant could be secured.

Agency responsibilities and local implications

The ruling places new duties on ICE supervisors to ensure officers in the field follow the court’s standards. Expect changes in:
– Training materials,
– Arrest forms, and
– Internal review systems in Colorado, as the agency seeks to demonstrate compliance while weighing an appeal.

Although Jackson’s order binds only federal officers within Colorado, it may influence debates and practices elsewhere. Local sheriffs and police departments that sometimes work alongside ICE — through jail holds or task forces — now face pressure from community groups to avoid roles in civil immigration arrests that do not meet the new probable cause and flight-risk standards.

Legal foundations and guidance

The decision relies on the same basic legal rules that govern stops and arrests by other law enforcement officers. Those rules are reflected in federal guidance from the Department of Homeland Security, which explains that immigration officers must base seizures on specific facts, not on someone’s race, language, or appearance alone. That guidance is posted on the agency’s official site at dhs.gov.

Next steps for plaintiffs and communities

• Lawyers for the plaintiffs say they will monitor new arrests closely and are prepared to return to court if ICE backslides.
• Affected families hope the ruling brings greater predictability to daily life in Colorado going forward.

Key takeaway: The ruling narrows ICE’s authority to make warrantless arrests in Colorado by requiring documented, individualized determinations of both probable cause of an immigration violation and a genuine flight risk before detaining someone without a warrant.