Another bs ruling: federal judge rules it is unconstitutional to arrest illegals at court

quote:

---

(unless this is a certified nationwide class

---

quote:

---

plaintiffs' motions for final class certification....are GRANTED

---

quote:

---

## Case Overview

*Carmen Aracely Pablo Sequen, et al. v. Sergio Albarran, et al.* (Case No. 25-cv-06487-PCP) is a federal class action lawsuit adjudicated in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The case centers on an Administrative Procedure Act (APA) challenge brought by noncitizens against recent policy changes implemented by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).

The plaintiffs challenged two primary policy changes enacted in 2025:

* The removal of prior restrictions on civil immigration arrests executed within or near immigration courthouses.


* A blanket nationwide waiver of the historical 12-hour limitation on detentions within short-term ICE holding facilities, expanding permissible holding times to 72 hours.



Additionally, the plaintiffs asserted constitutional claims under the First and Fifth Amendments concerning the allegedly punitive, unsanitary, and inhumane conditions of confinement resulting from extended stays at the ICE field office located at 630 Sansome Street in San Francisco.

---

## Arguments of the Parties

### Plaintiffs' Arguments

* **Arbitrary and Capricious Agency Action:** Plaintiffs argued that both the courthouse-arrest policies and the 12-hour-detention waiver violated the APA's reasoned-decisionmaking requirement ($5 \text{ U.S.C. } \S 706(2)(\text{A})$) because the agencies failed to provide a rational explanation for reversing long-standing policies.


* **Failure to Consider Key Factors:** Plaintiffs contended that ICE and EOIR completely disregarded the severe "chilling effect" that widespread courthouse arrests have on noncitizen attendance at mandatory immigration hearings.


* **Internal Policy Inconsistencies:** Plaintiffs argued that the nationwide detention waiver directly contradicted ICE’s own Performance-Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS), which mandate a strict 12-hour hold limit and explicitly prohibit sleeping apparatuses like beds or mats in short-term holding cells.


* **Constitutional Defects:** Plaintiffs asserted that detaining civil immigration suspects overnight or for multiple days in facilities designed strictly for temporary processing constitutes unconstitutional, punitive confinement under the Fifth Amendment and illegally restricts access to legal counsel.



### Defendants' (Government's) Arguments

* **Jurisdictional and Procedural Bars:** The government raised several threshold arguments, asserting that the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue a ruling because prior interlocutory orders were currently under appeal. They also argued that the proposed courthouse-arrest class definition was unworkably vague.


* **Non-Reviewability Under the APA:** Defendants maintained that the policies were not "final agency actions" subject to judicial review, but were instead exercises of prosecutorial discretion entirely "committed to agency discretion by law" under $5 \text{ U.S.C. } \S 701(\text{a})(2)$. They additionally argued that statutory bars ($8 \text{ U.S.C. } \S 1226(\text{e})$) precluded courts from setting aside detention decisions.


* **Substantive Justifications:** Substantively, the government argued that the rollbacks were compelled by executive orders directing federal agencies to faithfully execute immigration laws. They claimed that an influx of arrests, state-level limits on long-term bed space, and shifting operational demands necessitated the flexibility to hold detainees for up to 72 hours.



---

## The Court's Final Ruling

District Judge P. Casey Pitts ruled decisively in favor of the plaintiffs, granting final class certification and partial summary judgment while completely vacating the challenged policies.

### 1. Class Certification Granted

The Court certified two distinct plaintiff classes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2): a "Courthouse-Arrest Class" within ICE’s San Francisco Area of Responsibility, and a "Detention Class" consisting of individuals held at the 630 Sansome Street facility. The Court found that the definitions possessed clear legal boundaries and met all procedural requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy.

### 2. Rejection of Jurisdictional Obstacles

The Court dismissed the government's jurisdictional objections, clarifying that a pending interlocutory appeal regarding preliminary relief does not divest a district court of its authority to rule on the final merits of a case. Furthermore, the Court established that the challenged enforcement guidelines and detention waivers constituted reviewable "final agency actions" under the APA, and that general statutory limitations on individual detention appeals do not bar facial challenges to broad agency-wide policy frameworks.

### 3. Merits Ruling: Arbitrary and Capricious

The Court concluded that the 2025 courthouse-arrest policies and the 12-hour nationwide detention waiver were fundamentally arbitrary, capricious, and legally deficient:

* **ICE Courthouse Policy:** The policy was flawed because ICE failed to acknowledge that it was completely rescinding immigration courthouse protections sub silentio, while offering rationales (such as non-cooperative local state jurisdictions) that logically applied only to state criminal courts, not federal immigration courts.


* **EOIR Courthouse Policy:** EOIR's policy was found to be built on the false premise that ICE had validly altered its rules, and it failed to logically justify dismissing the well-documented chilling effect on hearing attendance.


* **Detention Waiver:** ICE failed to consider viable alternatives (such as adjusting its arrest tempo) and entirely neglected its constitutional obligation to avoid placing civil detainees in presumptively punitive conditions (e.g., forcing overnight stays without beds or blankets).



### 4. Remedy of Nationwide Vacatur

Rejecting the government's plea to limit the remedy strictly to the named plaintiffs or the geographic region, the Court held that the default and proper remedy under section 706 of the APA for an unreasoned policy is to cancel the policy entirely.

> **Conclusion of the Court:** "Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), the Court VACATES both the courthouse-arrest policies (i.e., ICE Policy No. 11072.3, ICE Policy No. 11072.4, and EOIR Operating Policies and Procedures Memorandum 25-06) and the 12-hour-detention waiver (i.e., ICE's June 24, 2025 memorandum titled 'Nationwide Hold Room Waiver')."
>
>

---

quote:

---

Well since they have no jurisdiction,

---