ICE in the Courts:
Research Briefing
The U.S. immigration court system has been transformed from a forum for adjudicating claims into an instrument of mass deportation. In March 2026, the DOJ admitted that ICE had been lying for over a year about its legal authority to arrest people at immigration courthouses — citing a memo that never actually applied to immigration courts. Meanwhile, ICE oral motions to dismiss cases increased 633% beginning in May 2025, with immigration judges granting 79.6% on the spot, funneling people into expedited removal with fewer due process protections. A Wisconsin judge was convicted of felony obstruction and forced to resign after helping an immigrant exit through a back door, sending a chilling message to the judiciary. A California federal judge paused courthouse arrest policies across Northern California, with motions now pending to extend the ruling nationwide. Democratic states including Connecticut and New York have passed or strengthened legislation restricting ICE activity at state courthouses, while the federal government is prosecuting officials who resist.
DOJ Admits ICE Lied About Courthouse Arrest Authority
DOJ Admits ICE Cited Erroneous Memo to Justify Year of Immigration Courthouse Arrests
In a letter to U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel, the DOJ conceded that a May 2025 ICE memo cited repeatedly in court to defend courthouse arrests “does not and has never applied to civil immigration enforcement actions in or near” immigration courts. The admission came as part of the lawsuit African Communities Together v. Lyons, challenging arrests at 26 Federal Plaza in Manhattan. An internal ICE email from March 19 reminded agents the memo didn’t apply — meaning ICE leadership knew the legal basis was false while DOJ lawyers continued citing it in court. The DOJ blamed “agency attorney error.”
Federal Agents “Stalked” Immigrants at Courts for Over a Year Using False Legal Basis
The American Prospect reported that federal agents used the fraudulent legal authority to “stalk immigrants for more than a year outside of immigration courts, lingering in the halls, grabbing people as they exit their hearings, and disappearing them into federal detention, even when judges say they have credible asylum claims.” Once arrested, ICE moved prisoners across the country to prevent them from meeting with lawyers. The U.S. Attorney’s letter indicated ICE would withdraw portions of its filings but did not indicate it would reconsider any earlier judgments or release those arrested under the false authority.
Courts as Deportation Pipeline: Dismissals & Expedited Removal
ICE Oral Motions to Dismiss Surge 633%; Judges Grant 79.6% on the Spot
Beginning May 20, 2025, ICE attorneys began systematically requesting that immigration judges dismiss cases to funnel people into expedited removal. Oral motions increased 633%, with 80.6% filed orally rather than in writing, depriving respondents of their statutory 10 days to respond. Immigration judges granted 79.6% of same-day oral motions. The tactic varies dramatically by location: New York’s Federal Plaza granted only 29% on the spot, while Atlanta W. Peachtree granted 100% of 193 motions immediately.
NIJC Lawsuit: Courts “Weaponized Into a Trap” for Immigrants Who Comply with Law
The NIJC, Democracy Forward, RAICES, and the Lawyers’ Committee filed a lawsuit representing 12 people arrested at court hearings. All had appeared intending to request protection or legal status, only to have ICE attorneys unexpectedly request dismissal and then be arrested by waiting ICE officers. One plaintiff was deported to Ecuador within weeks of being arrested at a hearing where he intended to file an LGBTQ asylum application; he is now in hiding. DHS instructed agents to arrest individuals even when judges declined to grant dismissal or when individuals sought to appeal.
Dramatic Variation by Court: NYC Judges Resist While Atlanta Grants 100% of Motions
Data analysis reveals that the immigration court assigned to a case has a drastic effect on outcomes. New York’s Federal Plaza — the epicenter of media coverage and public protest — granted only 77 of 268 oral motions on the spot. Van Nuys in Los Angeles granted 215 of 217. Atlanta W. Peachtree granted all 193 on the spot. The disparity means that whether a person can present their asylum claim or is funneled into expedited removal depends almost entirely on geography.
Prosecuting Judicial Resistance
Wisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan Convicted of Felony Obstruction, Forced to Resign
Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan was convicted of felony obstruction in December 2025 after leading an immigrant and his attorney out through a private jury door when she learned ICE agents were waiting. She faced up to five years in prison and resigned in January 2026, calling the proceedings “unprecedented” and warning they “threaten the independence of our judiciary.” Prosecutors argued judges cannot “decide which laws they want to follow,” while Democrats accused the administration of making a national example to chill judicial opposition to deportations.
Dugan Case Sends Chilling Message: Judges Who Resist Face Criminal Prosecution
Dugan’s case parallels a first Trump-term prosecution of Massachusetts Judge Shelley Richmond Joseph, whose charges were eventually dismissed. Dugan called her service as a judge “the honor of my life” and said her faith leads her to trust “that in the long run justice will be served for our independent judiciary and for me.” Court audio revealed her telling her court reporter she’d “take the heat.” A fellow judge testified against her, saying “judges shouldn’t be helping defendants evade arrest” — illustrating how the prosecution divided the bench itself.
State & Federal Legal Resistance
California Lawsuit Pauses ICE Courthouse Arrests; Motions Filed for Nationwide Injunction
U.S. District Judge Casey Pitts paused Trump administration policies allowing arrests at immigration courthouses across Northern California in December 2025 and ordered ICE to improve conditions at its San Francisco holding facility. In January 2026, the coalition behind Pablo Sequen v. Albarran filed motions seeking nationwide invalidation of the courthouse arrest policies, arguing they violate the Administrative Procedure Act by reversing longstanding practice without explanation and ignoring humanitarian consequences.
Connecticut Passes Courthouse Protection Law; Federal Judge Upholds It Against DOJ Challenge
Following a series of arrests at Stamford Superior Court — including agents pursuing two men into a bathroom — Connecticut lawmakers approved restrictions on civil arrests and mask-wearing by federal law enforcement at state courthouses. A federal judge dismissed a DOJ lawsuit challenging the law. New York’s Protect Our Courts Act, in place since 2020, prohibits civil arrests without a judicial warrant, extending protections to people traveling to and from court. Other Democratic states are considering similar legislation.
Elected Officials and Clergy Arrested Protesting Courthouse Arrests; Hundreds Join Accompaniment Programs
Hundreds of people have protested outside immigration courthouses since May 2025, with elected officials and DHS agents arrested at demonstrations. Clergy, military veterans, political leaders, and community members have organized accompaniment programs to escort immigrants to their hearings, attempting to prevent arrests or at least bear witness. Multiple members of Congress have written to ICE expressing concern over the “disturbing pattern” of courthouse arrests targeting “those who are following the rules.”
Ohio GOP Advances Bill Prohibiting Officials from Restricting ICE Courthouse Access
The Ohio Senate passed a bill that would prohibit public officials from interfering in immigration arrests or prohibiting cooperation with ICE, after judges in Franklin County imposed restrictions on civil arrests in courthouses. The legislation remains in a House committee. Republican sponsors argue “laws must be respected, this includes immigration laws,” while advocates warn the bill would strip courts of their ability to protect access to justice within their own buildings.
The state of Article 10 rights in the U.S. immigration system in April 2026 is defined by the most fundamental contradiction: the courts have been turned into the primary mechanism for denying the right to a fair hearing. The DOJ’s admission that ICE lied about its legal authority for over a year — while hundreds of people were arrested at the very courthouses where they sought justice — represents a corruption of the judicial process so brazen that even the government’s own lawyers could no longer sustain it. The admission came only after advocacy organizations filed lawsuits, not through any internal accountability mechanism.
The 633% increase in oral motions to dismiss reveals the systematic nature of the assault. When ICE attorneys file oral motions that bypass written notice requirements, and judges grant 79.6% on the spot, the hearing that Article 10 guarantees has been reduced to a formality — a procedural checkpoint on the way to expedited removal. The dramatic variation between courts (29% granted in New York vs. 100% in Atlanta) demonstrates that the right to a fair hearing is now a geographic lottery, determined not by the merits of a case but by which courthouse it is assigned to.
The Dugan prosecution carries perhaps the most dangerous long-term implication. By convicting a sitting judge of felony obstruction for exercising her judgment about courthouse procedures, the administration has established a precedent that judicial resistance to enforcement operations carries criminal consequences. The resignation that followed, and the division it created within the Milwaukee bench, will deter other judges from asserting their authority to protect access to justice. When judges fear prosecution for protecting due process, the “independent and impartial tribunal” Article 10 requires no longer exists.
The resistance — from California’s preliminary injunction to Connecticut’s legislation to the accompaniment programs where civilians escort immigrants to court — represents the most organized response yet to the breakdown of Article 10 protections. But the motions seeking a nationwide injunction face an uncertain path, and the Ohio bill criminalizing judicial resistance to ICE shows that the political response is not uniformly protective. The question for Article 10 is whether courts can defend their own independence quickly enough to prevent the permanent transformation of immigration hearings from forums for justice into deportation processing centers.
- NPR — DOJ Admits Erroneous Courthouse Authority
npr.org/2026/03/26/nx-s1-5762691/doj-admits-ice-courthouse-arrests… - American Prospect — ICE Lied About Authority
prospect.org/2026/03/25/ice-lied-about-its-authority… - AIC — ICE Oral Motions to Dismiss
americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/ice-attorneys-case-dismissals… - AIC — Court Resistance Analysis
americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/ice-arrests-immigration-courts… - NIJC — Courthouse Arrests Lawsuit
immigrantjustice.org/press-release/unlawful-ice-arrests-at-immigration… - FindLaw — Judge Dugan Conviction
findlaw.com/legalblogs/practice-of-law/wisconsin-judge-resigns… - PBS Wisconsin — Dugan Verdict
pbswisconsin.org/news-item/jury-finds-judge-hannah-dugan-guilty… - Al Jazeera — Dugan Trial
aljazeera.com/news/2025/12/15/judge-in-wisconsin-us-faces-trial… - Wisconsin Examiner — Obstruction Trial
wisconsinexaminer.com/2025/12/18/federal-obstruction-case… - Mission Local — California Lawsuit Goes Nationwide
missionlocal.org/2026/01/california-lawsuit-ice-courthouse-arrests… - Stateline — Democratic States Push Back
stateline.org (ICE courthouse arrests resistance)