Judge bars immigration arrests at US courthouses in a setback for Trump

“For 80 years, Congress has commanded federal agencies to think before they act,” wrote Pitts, referring to the Administrative Procedure Act, a 1946 law that requires federal agencies to justify its actions. That law, he wrote, "does not require an agency to make the choice that a reviewing court might deem preferable. But it demands that an agency at least provide sound reasons for following its chosen course."

The ruling is the second setback for courthouse arrests since May when a federal judge in New York barred them at immigration courts. That order applied only in New York, while the latest decision invalidated the policy nationwide.

James Percival, the U.S. Homeland Security Department's general counsel, criticized the ruling as an exercise in judicial overreach.

“When a judge sentences a defendant, the defendant is taken into custody. If an alien is ordered removed by an immigration judge, the same should happen. A district judge ordering otherwise is naked judicial activism in service of an anti-American, open borders agenda,” Percival wrote online.

After Trump took office, hearings across the country often ended with cases being dismissed by the government, setting the stage for plainclothes agents to make arrests in hallways in coordination with attorneys from the Department of Homeland Security.

Pitts, who was appointed by President Joe Biden, faulted the administration for carrying out the arrests and for holding people in nearby cells for longer than a prescribed 12-hour limit.