For many immigrants navigating the U.S. immigration system, one of their greatest fears has been walking into a courthouse — only to be arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). That fear had real consequences: some immigrants skipped their own immigration hearings, avoided reporting crimes, or stayed away from civil court proceedings entirely, all because they feared arrest the moment they stepped into a courthouse. A landmark federal court ruling issued on June 23, 2026, has now significantly changed that reality.
In the case Pablo Sequen v. Albarran, a federal judge vacated the ICE policies that authorized civil immigration arrests inside courthouses and the policy that allowed ICE to detain people in holding cells for up to 72 hours. This ruling is a major development for immigrants across the United States, particularly those with pending immigration cases who must appear before immigration courts. Here is everything you need to know about what happened and what it means for you.
What ICE Policies Did the Judge Vacate?
The court struck down three key ICE enforcement policies that had been in effect under the current administration:
- ICE Directive 11072.3 — This directive authorized ICE agents to conduct civil immigration arrests inside courthouses, including at immigration courts where individuals had hearings scheduled.
- EOIR Policy Memorandum 25-06 (EOIR PM 25-06) — This memo, issued by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (the immigration court system), similarly allowed enforcement actions to take place in or near immigration courthouses.
- ICE’s “Nationwide Hold Room Waiver” Memo (dated June 24, 2025) — This policy allowed ICE to hold individuals in holding facilities (also called “hold rooms”) for up to 72 hours, well beyond the standard 12-hour limit. The court reinstated the 12-hour maximum detention limit for hold rooms.
By vacating these three policies, the federal judge has restored key legal protections that previously limited ICE’s ability to arrest people in courthouses and detain individuals for extended periods in holding cells.
Who Is Protected by This Ruling?
The court certified two classes of people who are protected by this order:
- The Courthouse-Arrest Class: This covers individuals who have hearings on EOIR’s non-detained docket at immigration courthouses located within ICE’s San Francisco Field Office Area of Responsibility. In other words, if you have a non-detained immigration court hearing scheduled in the San Francisco ICE field office jurisdiction, this ruling protects you from being arrested in the courthouse by ICE agents.
- The Detention Class: This covers individuals who are currently or will be detained in a holding cell within ICE’s San Francisco Field Office. These individuals now have the protection of the 12-hour holding limit, which was previously waived under ICE’s nationwide memo.
It is important to note that the ruling currently applies within ICE’s San Francisco Field Office Area of Responsibility. However, this court decision sets a powerful legal precedent that immigration attorneys across the country may use to challenge similar courthouse arrest policies in other jurisdictions.
Why This Ruling Matters for Immigrants and Their Families
Courthouse arrests by ICE had created a chilling effect throughout immigrant communities in the United States. When people feared arrest simply for showing up to their own court hearings, the entire immigration system was put at risk. People missed their hearings, resulting in deportation orders issued in absentia (meaning in their absence). Immigrants who were crime victims or witnesses avoided reporting to law enforcement or appearing in civil court proceedings, leaving dangerous criminals unpunished and leaving immigrants vulnerable without access to justice.
The fear was particularly acute for individuals on the non-detained docket — people who are not in immigration detention and are living in the community while their cases are processed. These individuals are required to appear at their court hearings, but the risk of courthouse arrest made compliance terrifying. This ruling restores the reasonable expectation that a person who shows up to their immigration court hearing is there to participate in the legal process — not to be arrested.
Additionally, the reinstatement of the 12-hour holding limit for ICE hold rooms directly protects the rights and dignity of detained individuals. Extended holding periods without proper facilities can cause serious physical and mental harm, and the court’s decision to restore the time limit is a meaningful protection.
What Should Immigrants Do Right Now?
If you or a family member has an immigration court hearing scheduled, here are the steps you should take in light of this ruling:
- Attend your hearing as scheduled. Do not miss your immigration court date. Failing to appear will likely result in a deportation order issued in your absence, which is extremely difficult to reverse. This ruling provides additional protection for those attending hearings in the San Francisco field office area.
- Consult an immigration attorney immediately. If you are concerned about your safety or legal status, speak with a qualified immigration attorney before your hearing date. An attorney can advise you on what protections apply to your specific case and location.
- Understand your geographic coverage. This ruling currently covers ICE’s San Francisco Field Office Area of Responsibility. If your case is in a different jurisdiction, check with your immigration attorney about what protections apply in your area, as legal challenges to courthouse arrest policies are ongoing in other regions as well.
- Know your rights if detained in a hold room. If you are placed in an ICE holding cell, you have the right to be released or transferred within 12 hours under the terms of this ruling (for those within the covered class). Inform your attorney immediately if you believe your rights are being violated.
- Stay informed about appeals. Government agencies have the right to appeal court rulings. Monitor updates from AILA and other immigration advocacy organizations to know whether this ruling remains in effect.
The Broader Legal Battle Over ICE Courthouse Policies
The ruling in Pablo Sequen v. Albarran is part of a broader wave of federal litigation challenging the current administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement policies. Courts across the country have been examining the legality of various ICE directives that expanded enforcement powers in sensitive locations — including courthouses, churches, schools, and hospitals.
Historically, ICE maintained what were known as “sensitive location” policies, which generally discouraged enforcement actions in places where vulnerable populations needed to access services. Under the current administration, many of those protections were rolled back. The courthouse arrest policies struck down in this case were among the most controversial, drawing opposition from immigration lawyers, civil rights advocates, state attorneys general, and even judges who oversee the very courthouses where arrests were occurring.
The two classes certified by the court in this case — the Courthouse-Arrest Class and the Detention Class — represent a formal legal mechanism to protect groups of individuals, not just the individual plaintiffs. This class certification is significant because it means the protections extend to all qualifying individuals, not just those who filed the lawsuit.
What AILA Says About This Development
The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) has been closely monitoring ICE’s courthouse enforcement policies and the litigation challenging them. AILA has long advocated that courthouses should remain accessible to all people, regardless of immigration status, so that the justice system can function fairly. Courthouse arrests undermine the integrity of the legal system by deterring individuals from participating in legal proceedings — a principle fundamental to due process in the United States.
For immigrants affected by these policies, AILA recommends working with a qualified immigration attorney to understand how rulings like Pablo Sequen v. Albarran apply to their specific circumstances. Immigration law is complex, rapidly changing, and highly dependent on geography and individual facts.
If you have concerns about courthouse safety, pending immigration hearings, or your rights during detention, do not wait. The legal landscape is shifting, and having an attorney on your side can make an enormous difference in the outcome of your case.
For full details on this ruling and ongoing litigation tracking courthouse arrests and detention policies, visit the American Immigration Lawyers Association at aila.org or consult a qualified immigration attorney in your area.
Immigration Fleet Law Firm