Twelve immigrants, identified only by pseudonyms, have sued the federal Department of Justice for enabling federal agents to make arrests at courthouses outside of immigration hearings. The plaintiffs are from Cuba, Ecuador, Guinea, Venezuela, and elsewhere. Many had entered the country between 2021 and 2024 and applied for asylum. They were arrested when they showed up at courthouses this year. Most are in detention in New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents have been arresting immigrants appearing for routine hearings at immigration courts. This is a reversal of the longstanding practice where ICE has traditionally stayed away from courthouses. However, since May 2025, ICE agents have made courthouse arrests a regular practice. ICE prosecutors have asked judges to dismiss their cases when a defendant shows up while ICE agents wait outside to arrest them. Masked agents have arrested immigrants leaving courtrooms and placed them in expedited deportation proceedings without a hearing.
The lawsuit claims that this recent practice of arresting defendants outside of immigration courtrooms violates federal immigration laws and the Constitution.
Why Is a Federal Lawsuit Necessary If Immigration Courts are Already Involved?
Immigration judges are administrative law judges. This category of judges includes immigration courts, bankruptcy courts, and tax courts. Administrative law judges are not considered part of the judicial branch of the United States.
Federal judges of the judicial branch, known as Article III judges, are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for a lifetime appointment. Article III judges derive their powers directly from Article III of the Constitution and thus cannot be fired by the President, though they can be impeached. Article III judges have the power to judicially review the constitutionality of laws and executive orders passed by the other two branches.
In contrast, immigration judges are appointed by the Attorney General of the United States without confirmation by the legislature. Instead of a lifetime appointment, immigration judges serve a 15-year term and can be fired by the Attorney General.
The only recourse to ICE’s abuse of immigration courts is an Article III judge who cannot be terminated by the Attorney General. A litigant in immigration court could do so either by appealing their specific case to a federal court or filing a lawsuit, as has been done here.
ICE Courthouse Arrests Will Only Undermine Confidence in the Judiciary asa Whole
Many Americans may not understand the distinction between an administrative law judge and an Article III judge. The only thing litigants and their families see is that they legally complied with a summons to appear in court and were punished despite the sincerity of their claims. In the future, more and more litigants will avoid the courthouse regardless of how valid their case is or how frivolous the prosecution’s position is. If there is a great chance someone will be deported even if they have all the evidence proving they are in the country legally, they may not bother to show up at all.
Having masked agents outside a courthouse is also extremely damaging to the judiciary’s image. The legitimacy of any judge is based on the notion that the judge is neutral and will consider the arguments and evidence of all sides equally. However, if the agents are waiting right outside, it gives the impression that the court has already made up its mind.
Moreover, the punishment is supposed to come after the crime. If no crime has been committed, then no punishment should be inflicted.
Do I Need an Immigration Attorney?
If you need help with any immigration matters, including a visa application or a green card application, it is essential to contact an immigration attorney. Immigration laws are complex and have many deadlines that must be met. A skilled attorney can help you overcome these challenges to get the best outcome for you and your family.
