California challenges ICE arrests at state courthouses
Bonta says ICE arrests deter victims and witnesses from attending state court. California alleges continued practices after a policy was vacated. Federal defendants defend enforcement discretion in a separate appeal.
Case period:
Published by The Dispute Index editorial teamPublished Updated
Overview
California's October 15, 2026 complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief under administrative-law and Tenth Amendment theories. It alleges that arrests discourage victims and witnesses from attending state court. Those alleged harms have not been established by a ruling in this lawsuit.
ICE's May 27, 2025 directive cited safety and enforcement needs. In the separate Pablo Sequen case concerning immigration courts, Judge P. Casey Pitts vacated the January and May 2025 courthouse policies on June 23, 2026 for inadequate agency reasoning. On July 10 he denied a stay and explained that vacatur restored earlier policies permitting courthouse arrests in specified circumstances. It was not a prohibition on every courthouse arrest.
The federal defendants appealed. The Ninth Circuit referred their stay request to the merits panel on August 26. In their September 16 brief, they argued that enforcement decisions are discretionary, the policies were reasonably explained and nationwide vacatur exceeded the proper remedy. That brief predates California's lawsuit.
California's October 15 complaint says the appeal and stay request remained pending. We have not independently verified a later appellate disposition. California alleges on information and belief that a materially similar directive followed the vacatur; we could not verify a replacement directive. The 2025 document below records ICE's historical rationale, rather than establishing which instructions are operative now.
People in this case
Rob BontaDirectly involved
Timeline
6 timeline entries on this page. Dates: May 27, 2025 to October 15, 2026
May 2025
ICE issues a courthouse-enforcement directive
Source release
Policy 11072.4 sets procedures for civil arrests in or near courthouses and describes the agency's safety and enforcement rationale.
[01]ICE May 2025 guidance on courthouse civil immigration enforcement
ICE's May 27, 2025 directive cites safety and enforcement needs. Judge Pitts vacated it on June 23, 2026 in Pablo Sequen. Federal defendants appealed. This document records the historical policy, rather than establishing current instructions.
ICE May 2025 guidance on courthouse civil immigration enforcementPolicy 11072.4, Background, Aliens Subject to Enforcement Actions, and Procedures
June 2026
Court vacates the 2025 courthouse policies
Judge Pitts finds inadequate agency reasoning in the separate immigration-court case. California's later lawsuit concerns state courthouses.
[02]District court vacates ICE and EOIR courthouse policies
Judge P. Casey Pitts finds the challenged policies arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act and vacates them. The order concerns immigration-court arrests and detention policies; California's later lawsuit concerns state courthouses.
District court vacates ICE and EOIR courthouse policiesPablo Sequen, No. 5:25-cv-06487-PCP, ECF 205, pages 1-3 and 38-71
July 2026
District court denies a stay pending appeal
The court explains that vacatur restores prior policies with specified exceptions, rather than prohibiting every courthouse arrest.
[03]District court denies a stay of its courthouse-policy judgment
The court denies a stay pending appeal and explains that vacatur restores earlier policies that permit courthouse arrests in specified circumstances. The order does not prohibit every courthouse arrest.
District court denies a stay of its courthouse-policy judgmentPablo Sequen, ECF 217, pages 1-7
August 2026
Ninth Circuit refers the stay request to the merits panel
The docket entry refers the government's stay motion to the panel deciding the appeal. California's October 15 complaint later reports the request still pending.
[04]Ninth Circuit refers the courthouse-policy stay motion to the merits panel
The August 26 entry refers the stay request to the merits panel. A September 18 entry extends the answering-brief deadline to November 16. The available docket runs through September 21. California's October 15 complaint reports the stay request still pending; we have not independently verified a later appellate disposition.
Ninth Circuit refers the courthouse-policy stay motion to the merits panelNo. 26-4310, ECF 23; September 18 and 21 entries 27-28[05]California challenges civil immigration arrests at state courthouses
California alleges continued state-courthouse enforcement after a June vacatur. Its replacement-directive claim is made on information and belief. Paragraph 45 reports the appeal and stay request pending as of October 15; that is California's representation.
California challenges civil immigration arrests at state courthousesNo. 2:26-cv-12026, document 1, paragraphs 27-28, 44-47 and claims for relief
September 2026
Federal defendants file their appeal brief
The defendants defend enforcement discretion and the reasons for the 2025 guidance. They seek reversal of the vacatur in Pablo Sequen.
[06]Federal defendants defend the courthouse guidance on appeal
The federal defendants argue that the guidance reflects enforcement discretion, was reasonably explained and should not have been vacated nationwide. This is their appeal in Pablo Sequen, filed before California's October 15 state-courthouse lawsuit.
Federal defendants defend the courthouse guidance on appealNo. 26-4310, opening brief, pages 1-7 and 51-57
October 2026
California sues over alleged continuing courthouse arrests
The complaint challenges state-courthouse practices that California says continued after a June vacatur of the earlier directive. It seeks declaratory and injunctive relief.
[05]California challenges civil immigration arrests at state courthouses
California alleges continued state-courthouse enforcement after a June vacatur. Its replacement-directive claim is made on information and belief. Paragraph 45 reports the appeal and stay request pending as of October 15; that is California's representation.
California challenges civil immigration arrests at state courthousesNo. 2:26-cv-12026, document 1, paragraphs 27-28, 44-47 and claims for relief[07]Rob Bonta announces California courthouse-arrest lawsuit
Bonta says courthouse arrests impede testimony and prosecutions. The described harms and post-vacatur practices are California's allegations.
Rob Bonta announces California courthouse-arrest lawsuitBonta statement and account of enforcement following June vacatur
Claims
Claims separate what was said from what is contested. Follow each source for the original wording and context.
What's disputed
Disputed claim
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Courthouse civil immigration enforcement can reduce safety risks and is needed where local jurisdictions do not cooperate with ICE.
What is disputed
ICE stated this rationale in May 2025. The directive was vacated in June 2026; federal defendants later defended it on appeal. This claim describes the historical justification.
Sources (1)
- ICE May 2025 guidance on courthouse civil immigration enforcementPolicy 11072.4, Background, Aliens Subject to Enforcement Actions, and Procedures
Disputed claim
ICE civil immigration arrests at California state courthouses unlawfully interfere with access to justice and the State's judicial functions.
Sources (2)
- California challenges civil immigration arrests at state courthousesNo. 2:26-cv-12026, document 1, paragraphs 27-28, 44-47 and claims for relief
- Rob Bonta announces California courthouse-arrest lawsuitBonta statement and account of enforcement following June vacatur
Response record
Responses
Choose one response filter, or select All responses to see the full record.
2 responses. Newest first.
Rob BontaAttorney General of CaliforniaDirectly involvedBefore this statement
Bonta announced a lawsuit challenging civil arrests at California state courthouses.
"We’ve seen serious criminal charges dropped and entire cases jeopardized because victims and witnesses are too scared to come to the courthouse to testify."
CondemnedCase context: California challenges ICE arrests at state courthouses
Full statement and sources
Bonta says fear of courthouse arrests has led victims and witnesses to avoid testifying, jeopardizing criminal cases.
After the statement
The complaint alleges continued practices after the earlier directive's vacatur and seeks an injunction.
Rob Bonta announces California courthouse-arrest lawsuitBonta statement and account of enforcement following June vacaturCalifornia challenges civil immigration arrests at state courthousesNo. 2:26-cv-12026, document 1, paragraphs 27-28, 44-47 and claims for reliefWhy this label?
The issue is civil immigration enforcement in and around California state courthouses. He expressly criticizes the enforcement conduct and alleges resulting harm to justice.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
U.S. Immigration and Customs EnforcementAgency issuing Policy 11072.4Directly involvedBefore this statement
The policy superseded January 2025 guidance and addressed civil immigration enforcement in or near courthouses.
"it can reduce safety risks to the public, targeted alien(s), and ICE officers and agents."
Defended or excusedCase context: California challenges ICE arrests at state courthouses
Full statement and sources
ICE's May 2025 memo says courthouse arrests can reduce safety risks. It also says such enforcement is often required when jurisdictions refuse to cooperate.
After the statement
The memo says officers should generally avoid courthouses dedicated to non-criminal proceedings, with approval required for operationally necessary exceptions.
ICE May 2025 guidance on courthouse civil immigration enforcementPolicy 11072.4, Background, Aliens Subject to Enforcement Actions, and ProceduresWhy this label?
The issue is civil immigration enforcement in and around California state courthouses. The directive expressly justifies courthouse enforcement. This is the older policy rationale, not a response to the October 2026 lawsuit.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Sources
(7)
Original text
California challenges civil immigration arrests at state courthouses
Relevant passage: No. 2:26-cv-12026, document 1, paragraphs 27-28, 44-47 and claims for relief
About this source
California alleges continued state-courthouse enforcement after a June vacatur. Its replacement-directive claim is made on information and belief. Paragraph 45 reports the appeal and stay request pending as of October 15; that is California's representation.
- Author
- California Department of Justice
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Federal defendants defend the courthouse guidance on appeal
Relevant passage: No. 26-4310, opening brief, pages 1-7 and 51-57
About this source
The federal defendants argue that the guidance reflects enforcement discretion, was reasonably explained and should not have been vacated nationwide. This is their appeal in Pablo Sequen, filed before California's October 15 state-courthouse lawsuit.
- Author
- United States Department of Justice, counsel for federal appellants
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
Ninth Circuit refers the courthouse-policy stay motion to the merits panel
Relevant passage: No. 26-4310, ECF 23; September 18 and 21 entries 27-28
About this source
The August 26 entry refers the stay request to the merits panel. A September 18 entry extends the answering-brief deadline to November 16. The available docket runs through September 21. California's October 15 complaint reports the stay request still pending; we have not independently verified a later appellate disposition.
- Author
- United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
District court denies a stay of its courthouse-policy judgment
Relevant passage: Pablo Sequen, ECF 217, pages 1-7
About this source
The court denies a stay pending appeal and explains that vacatur restores earlier policies that permit courthouse arrests in specified circumstances. The order does not prohibit every courthouse arrest.
- Author
- United States District Court for the Northern District of California
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
District court vacates ICE and EOIR courthouse policies
Relevant passage: Pablo Sequen, No. 5:25-cv-06487-PCP, ECF 205, pages 1-3 and 38-71
About this source
Judge P. Casey Pitts finds the challenged policies arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act and vacates them. The order concerns immigration-court arrests and detention policies; California's later lawsuit concerns state courthouses.
- Author
- United States District Court for the Northern District of California
- Published
- Accessed
Original text
ICE May 2025 guidance on courthouse civil immigration enforcement
Relevant passage: Policy 11072.4, Background, Aliens Subject to Enforcement Actions, and Procedures
About this source
ICE's May 27, 2025 directive cites safety and enforcement needs. Judge Pitts vacated it on June 23, 2026 in Pablo Sequen. Federal defendants appealed. This document records the historical policy, rather than establishing current instructions.
- Author
- U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Published
- Accessed
Official statement
Rob Bonta announces California courthouse-arrest lawsuit
Relevant passage: Bonta statement and account of enforcement following June vacatur
About this source
Bonta says courthouse arrests impede testimony and prosecutions. The described harms and post-vacatur practices are California's allegations.
- Author
- California Department of Justice
- Published
- Accessed
Share or embed this case
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the case page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- California challenges ICE arrests at state courthouses
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/cases/california-ice-state-courthouse-arrests-access-justice
The Dispute Index. "California challenges ICE arrests at state courthouses". First published: 2026-10-16. Last updated: 2026-10-16. https://disputeindex.com/cases/california-ice-state-courthouse-arrests-access-justice