California Federal Court Overturns Three ICE Citations for Violating Administrative Procedures Act — Braking the Expedited Removal Transition Tactic
On June 23, 2026, Judge P. Casey Pitts of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a nationwide injunction against three Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) policies that authorized immigration arrests within or near immigration courts. The case, Pablo Sequen v. Albarran, case number 5:25-cv-06487, was decided on grounds of violating the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and the 71-page ruling vacated the government's policies themselves. This decision directly impacts immigrants and asylum seekers with upcoming appearances in immigration court.
What order was issued — a 71-page ruling that overturned the policy itself
“ICE's 2025 court arrest policies lack a rational explanation. ... It is now clear that the absence of a nexus between expanded court arrests and the reasons stated by ICE demonstrates not simply an unreasoned decision, but a failure to make a decision at all. — Judge Fitz, Ruling of June 23, 2026”
In a 71-page ruling, Judge Fitz vacated all three policies that allowed ICE to conduct arrests on court premises, citing violations of the Administrative Procedure Act. He also invalidated an exemption policy that increased the time limit for holding immigrants in short-term detention facilities from 12 to 72 hours. The legal basis for this decision was the Administrative Procedure Act's prohibition against ‘arbitrary and capricious’ actions. The judge determined that the government failed to provide reasonable explanations for all three policies, disregarded concerns that individuals with mandatory court appearances might avoid courts to evade arrest, and undermined the overall integrity of immigration proceedings.
The most significant feature of this ruling is its nationwide scope. In the 2025 case of Trump v. CASA, the Supreme Court limited lower courts' ability to issue nationwide injunctions. Judge Fitz, however, stated that this limitation does not apply here because the case involves vacatur under the Administrative Procedure Act, not an injunction. Vacatur under the APA legally invalidates the policy itself, requiring the government to restart the entire administrative process if it wants to implement the same policy again. Consequently, the ruling takes effect immediately in immigration courts across the United States, extending beyond the jurisdiction of San Francisco.
Previously, in May 2026, Judge Kevin Castel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York banned ICE arrests at three immigration courts in New York City. That order was limited to the jurisdiction of New York City. This ruling by Judge Pitts is the first court decision to have nationwide effect among several court decisions that have put the brakes on the same policy.
Why was this order issued — the structure of the tactic linking denial, arrest, and swift deportation
“According to an analysis of public records by the American Immigration Council, ICE issued an internal directive on May 20, 2025, instructing its prosecutors to dismiss pending cases in immigration court and coordinate with deportation officers on in-court arrests.”
ICE began implementing this tactic nationwide in May 2025. Internal directives issued at the time instructed ICE attorneys assigned to Immigration Courts to orally move to dismiss pending cases. Once a case is dismissed, the party loses their right to a hearing before an immigration judge and is immediately subject to expedited removal—a process that allows for swift deportation without an immigration judge’s review.
The flow of this tactic is as follows. An ICE inspector orally requests a dismissal in court. The immigration judge grants the dismissal on the spot. The moment the party leaves the courtroom, they are arrested by an ICE deportation officer waiting in the hallway. The arrested party proceeds to expedited removal without an opportunity to appear before the immigration judge again.
According to an analysis of public records by the U.S. Immigration Commission, on May 20, 2025—the first day the guidelines took effect—the number of oral motions to dismiss filed with ICE surged by 6,33% compared to the previous day. Statistics from the following two months showed that 86.5% of these oral motions to dismiss were heard on the same day they were filed, and 79.6% of those were granted on the same day. According to immigration court regulations, parties are supposed to be given 10 days to respond to a motion to dismiss, but oral summary dismissals effectively precluded this opportunity.
Judge Fitz ruled that the "dismiss-arrest-quick deportation" framework, introduced without a reasonable explanation, was itself a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, and that the government showed no signs of having seriously considered its negative side effects.
Who is affected—appearing is dangerous, not appearing is also dangerous
“In the ruling, Judge Fitz highlighted that ICE has significantly increased arrests via warrants, effectively ignoring concerns that immigrants who are complying with their court appearance obligations will avoid attending court to prevent being arrested.”
The most direct problem created by this tactic is the ‘appearance dilemma." Individuals who receive a Notice to Appear (NTA) in immigration court, the government document that initiates immigration court proceedings, must appear in court on the scheduled date. Failure to appear can result in an immigration judge holding the hearing in absentia, meaning without the individual present, and issuing an order of deportation in absentia. This order is extremely difficult to cancel, except under very limited circumstances.
However, there was a risk of being arrested in the hallway upon appearing in court. If ICE requests a dismissal of the case and it is granted, then upon conclusion of the hearing, there would be no pending court case. An ICE deportation officer waiting in the hallway would then arrest the individual on the spot and initiate expedited removal proceedings. This process can happen within minutes of the hearing's conclusion.
The lead plaintiff in this case, Carmen Aracely Pablo Sequen, an asylum seeker from Guatemala, was arrested by ICE as she was leaving the courthouse after attending a regular hearing at the San Francisco Immigration Court. This occurred immediately after an ICE prosecutor had requested, and been granted, her case dismissal that same day. This led to the lawsuit, with Judge Fitz initially ordering Pablo Sequen's immediate release through a temporary restraining order early in the proceedings.
If you are currently in removal proceedings, have a pending asylum application, or are making regular appearances, you should be aware of this decision and confirm your case status with your attorney. You should specifically review whether ICE has sought dismissal of your case.
Remaining issues — appeal, stay of execution, and future outlook
“Department of Homeland Security (DHS) General Counsel James Percival wrote on social media immediately after the ruling that the decision was blatant judicial activism for an anti-American border opening agenda.”
The government strongly protested immediately after the ruling. The Justice Department's legal counsel for Homeland Security immediately posted a critical message on social media, and an appeal is highly likely. The appellate court will be the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. During the appeal process, if the government requests a stay of the ruling (a request to temporarily halt the judgment's effect) and the court grants it, the actual effect of the ruling may be suspended during that period. As of now, it is not confirmed whether a stay will be requested.
Legal battles over nationwide applicability are also expected to continue. Although Judge Fitz ruled that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) was not invalidated by the limitations of the CASA ruling, the government is expected to challenge this interpretation in higher courts.
The May order in New York and this June ruling differ in their legal nature and scope. The May order was an injunction limited to three immigration courts in New York City. This June ruling, based on the Administrative Procedure Act, overturned the three policies themselves and applies to all immigration courts nationwide.
Immigration law experts believe that ICE is required to restart administrative proceedings from the beginning to resume arrests in immigration court premises, unless a stay of deportation is granted during the appeal process. The final outcome of the ruling depends on the results of the appeal.
Closing remarks
While this ruling remains in effect, individuals with scheduled appearances in immigration court should confirm the following three items in advance:.
First, you must appear on the date specified on the summons. Even if court-ordered arrest tactics have been blocked on judgment, failing to appear can result in an order of exclusion in absentia. This order is very difficult to reverse later.
Second, before your appearance, confirm the current status of your case with your attorney. It is important to determine whether ICE has filed a motion to dismiss your case and whether your case is still pending in immigration court. If your case has already been dismissed, this ruling may be directly relevant.
Third, the ruling could be temporarily suspended if a stay of execution is granted during an appeal. The immigration law landscape is currently changing rapidly, so if you have specific details regarding your case, please consult with an immigration law specialist.
Disclaimer: This column is for general information purposes only and is not legal advice for your specific case. You should always consult with an attorney who specializes in immigration law for your individual case.
Law Offices of Jin D. Cho
NEW YORK OFFICE (Flushing) 35-24 154th Street, Flushing, NY 11354
(t) 718-353-2699 (f) 718-353-8132
NEW JERSEY OFFICE 560 Sylvan Avenue, 3Fl., Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
(t) 201-449-0009