Skip Navigation
Analysis

States Push Back Against ICE Courthouse Arrests

Arresting people in and around courthouses for immigration violations harms the entire justice system.

November 22, 2019
ICE arrest
Allen Schaben/Getty

Since Pres­id­ent Trump took office, U.S. Immig­ra­tion and Customs Enforce­ment officers have dramat­ic­ally increased their pres­ence in state court­houses.

ICE officers have walked the halls, sat in courtrooms, and ques­tioned court attendees and staff, trying to identify and arrest people in court for cases unre­lated to immig­ra­tion. The people they target may be appear­ing as a defend­ant or witness, seek­ing a restrain­ing order against an abus­ive part­ner, or seek­ing custody of their chil­dren.

Advoc­ates have docu­mented the chilling effect ICE’s pres­ence has on court­house access — deter­ring victims, surviv­ors, and witnesses from pursu­ing justice and using court services — and the result­ing harm it does to the justice system. That’s why judgesprosec­utors, public defend­ers, and advoc­ates have deman­ded an end to ICE’s unwel­come court­house activ­it­ies.

ICE has repeatedly rejec­ted these appeals to protect the normal func­tion­ing of the justice system, but 2019 has seen momentum build against court­house immig­ra­tion arrests as several states have taken action.

Courts Restrict Court­house Arrests

This month, Oregon became the latest state to push ICE out of its court­houses, prompt­ing a protest from the ICE. The Oregon Supreme Court adop­ted a rule prohib­it­ing civil immig­ra­tion arrests inside or near court­houses without a judi­cial warrant. Because ICE officers usually rely on “admin­is­trat­ive” warrants, which don’t require the sign-off of an impar­tial judge, the rule should effect­ively put an end to ICE arrests inside the state’s courts and on surround­ing side­walks and park­ing lots.

In announ­cing the new rule, Oregon’s chief justice said, “Arrests in court­houses have interfered with judi­cial proceed­ings. … We are adopt­ing this rule to main­tain the integ­rity of our courts and provide access to justice.”

A few months earlier, New York’s judi­ciary was the first to clearly prohibit court­house arrests without a judi­cial warrant. In April, New York’s Office of Court Admin­is­tra­tion issued a direct­ive prohib­it­ing warrant­less arrests inside court­houses. It also required that court secur­ity officers file “unusual occur­rence” reports if they saw on-duty ICE officers observing court proceed­ings.

New Jersey’s chief justice followed suit in May with a direct­ive that stopped short of requir­ing a judi­cial warrant for court­house arrests, but put in place several proced­ural require­ments so that judges and admin­is­trat­ors are at least aware when ICE plans to arrest someone appear­ing in court.

While these are the only courts to have taken statewide action, a hand­ful of smal­ler juris­dic­tions took action in 2017 and 2018. Muni­cipal courts in Seattle and Berna­lillo County, New Mexico (home to Albuquerque), updated their court­house access policies to prohibit warrant­less court­house arrests shortly after observ­ers first noted ICE’s increased court­house pres­ence in 2017. Berna­lillo County’s policy goes further to prohibit non-court law enforce­ment from “randomly inter­rogat[ing] indi­vidu­als about their iden­tity,” recog­niz­ing that for an indi­vidual coming to court, the prospect of being ques­tioned by ICE may be as much of a deterrent as being arres­ted.

Progress Through Legis­la­tion and Litig­a­tion

Courts weren’t the only ones to limit ICE court­house enforce­ment this year. In Octo­ber, Cali­for­nia enacted a law that requires a judi­cial warrant for civil arrests of people attend­ing a court proceed­ing or deal­ing with other legal busi­ness in a court­house. The law also author­izes judges to take further action as neces­sary to “prohibit activ­it­ies that threaten access to state court­houses and court proceed­ings.” 

And oppon­ents of ICE court­house arrests in Massachu­setts won a major victory in a lawsuit chal­len­ging court­house arrests this summer. The plaintiffs — public defend­ers, prosec­utors, and a Latino-led community organ­iz­a­tion — sued ICE in federal court, arguing that its court­house activ­ity both over­steps the agency’s stat­utory author­ity and viol­ates consti­tu­tional protec­tions of indi­vidual access to courts and states’ author­ity over their justice systems. The federal district court gran­ted a prelim­in­ary injunc­tion, prohib­it­ing ICE from making arrests in Massachu­setts courts. The Trump admin­is­tra­tion has appealed.

More Progress Likely to Come

Recent research and news reports out of Wash­ing­ton StatePennsylvaniaConnecti­cut, and else­where show that ICE is continu­ing to make warrant­less court­house arrests in states that haven’t taken steps to limit its pres­ence. Mean­while, Wash­ing­ton State’s chief justice is consid­er­ing adopt­ing a rule similar to Oregon’s.

In response, Attor­ney General William Barr and Acting Home­land Secur­ity Secret­ary Chad Wolf sent a letter Thursday to the chief justices of Oregon and Wash­ing­ton object­ing to the policies and claim­ing that federal officers are not subject to such state rules.

Indeed, even where new policies limit­ing these arrests are in place, ICE may try to sidestep them. In New York, ICE has exploited loop­holes to arrest people just outside court­house entrances and at local courts not covered by the Office of Court Admin­is­tra­tion’s policy. As a result, New York prosec­utors, legal service providers, and advoc­ates have already filed lawsuits similar to the one in Massachu­setts. Immig­rant rights advoc­ates in New York have also put the Protect Our Courts Act on their list of 2020 legis­lat­ive prior­it­ies. The bill would extend protec­tion from warrant­less immig­ra­tion arrests to people on the way to and from all court­houses.

All of these devel­op­ments suggest that years of advocacy have had an impact on state offi­cials. They know that ICE is continu­ing to pursue members of their communit­ies in state and local courts, and they know this pres­ence is lead­ing to the exclu­sion of some community members from the justice system.

The Trump admin­is­tra­tion could, on its own, put an end to court­house immig­ra­tion arrests, instruct­ing ICE officers to avoid enforce­ment in court­houses as they do in hospit­als, schools, and reli­gious insti­tu­tions. Since that’s unlikely, however, it is appar­ent that the fight will continue at the state level to ensure that court­house doors remain open to all.