ICE courthouse arrests are facing growing pushback from Democratic-led states, as local officials argue that federal agents are turning courthouses into hunting grounds and scaring immigrants away from the justice system. The practice — in which Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers wait in and around buildings where immigration court hearings take place and detain people as they arrive or leave — has become a flashpoint in states such as New York and California.
Critics say these tactics are unlawful, damage due process rights, and erode trust in courts that already feel hostile to many noncitizens. Supporters counter that ICE is simply enforcing existing immigration law against people who are already on agency lists, often because they missed earlier appointments or have prior removal orders. Lawyers and community groups warn that picking people up at immigration court — sometimes immediately after immigration judges have finished a case — sends a chilling message: showing up for a hearing can lead straight to detention or deportation.
How the operations take place
Reports from courthouses describe ICE agents:
- Waiting in lobbies, elevators, and just outside courtroom doors
- Monitoring published lists of scheduled immigration court hearings
- Matching names to internal ICE databases and detaining individuals as they arrive or depart
Many targeted individuals:
- Do not have lawyers
- May not fully know their legal options when approached by officers
- In some cases are moved into fast-track removal, where they can be deported without the fuller hearing immigration law usually promises
Legal and constitutional issues
The legal fight focuses on the type of paperwork ICE uses:
- ICE often relies on administrative warrants issued within the agency rather than judicial warrants signed by neutral judges.
- Civil rights lawyers argue that detaining someone on an administrative warrant, especially inside or immediately outside a courthouse, violates the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable seizures.
Several courts have agreed that arrests without judicial warrants can cross constitutional lines, opening the door to lawsuits that directly challenge ICE courthouse arrests.
Lawsuits also contend that the practice conflicts with:
- Due process protections
- The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which governs how federal agencies create and follow rules
“When people are afraid to attend immigration court hearings, the entire system breaks down,” plaintiffs say. Judges cannot hear cases, witnesses stay away, and victims of crime are less likely to come forward. The courthouse should be one of the few places noncitizens can appear without fearing immediate arrest.
State and local pushback
Democratic-led states and city officials have organized multiple responses:
- New York City (where immigrants make up nearly 40% of the population) filed an amicus brief in August 2025 backing lawsuits aimed at curbing the practice. City lawyers argued ICE courthouse arrests undermine fairness and public safety by driving people away from the courts — including victims, witnesses, and parents seeking child-support or protective orders.
- California has seen protests outside courthouses (e.g., Concord) and advocacy pressure that led some state courts to issue standing orders limiting how and when immigration agents can operate on courthouse grounds.
Advocates warn that ICE presence in court hallways deters cooperation with police investigations, weakens neighborhood safety, and empowers abusers or exploitative employers — especially against undocumented workers who already fear law enforcement.
Congressional and political context
The courtroom tensions unfold amid national legislative debate. Congress has considered more than 15 bills dealing with enforcement around sensitive locations. Notable measures include:
| Bill / Proposal | Effect / Direction |
|---|---|
| Protecting Sensitive Locations Act (proposed) | Would restrict enforcement in places like courthouses, schools, and hospitals |
| Deport Alien Gang Members Act (proposed) | Would expand government ability to detain and deport certain noncitizens |
These measures reflect a broader split:
- Supporters of strict enforcement view courthouse operations as a public safety tool.
- Opponents see them as an attack on basic legal protections and a deterrent to accessing justice.
Impact inside the courtroom
The presence of ICE agents raises questions about the role and independence of immigration adjudicators:
- Immigration judges are part of the Department of Justice (Executive Office for Immigration Review, EOIR) rather than an independent judiciary.
- Judges do not control ICE enforcement operations, but arrests near courtroom doors can undermine faith in the hearing process.
The EOIR explains basic procedures on its website at justice.gov/eoir, but formal rules offer little comfort to families who see loved ones led away in handcuffs moments after a case is closed.
Practical effects and continuing conflict
Analysis by VisaVerge.com finds the clash over ICE courthouse arrests showing no sign of fading while federal policy remains unclear and local officials feel compelled to act.
Key practical consequences cited by city leaders and advocates:
- With more than one in three New Yorkers born abroad, officials say they cannot afford a justice system that large portions of the community view as a trap.
- Attorneys report clients refusing to testify or even file paperwork because they fear recognition by immigration authorities.
- In many cities the practical effect is a shadow over every trip to court for noncitizens — whether for traffic tickets, family disputes, or immigration hearings.
Supporters of enforcement argue:
- Courthouses are predictable, controlled spaces where officers can safely find people they are already seeking without conducting home or workplace raids.
- Many targets already have past removal orders, and inaction in court buildings could be seen as rewarding those who ignore previous notices.
For now, the day-to-day reality for many immigrants is that every court date carries legal risk and deep personal fear, and the debate over ICE courthouse arrests continues at local, state, and federal levels.
This Article in a Nutshell
ICE arrests near immigration courthouses have provoked lawsuits and local pushback, with New York City filing an amicus brief in August 2025. Critics argue agents use administrative warrants to detain people arriving for hearings, chilling participation and violating Fourth Amendment and APA protections. Supporters say enforcement targets those with prior removal orders. State courts, protests, and proposed federal bills reflect a national split, leaving many immigrants fearful and legal outcomes unsettled.
