117

Federal judge blocks Trump policy that allows immigration court arrests (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 5 hours ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Judge vacates administrations policies, finding actions of ICE and another government arm ‘arbitrary and capricious’

A federal ⁠judge in California vacated the ⁠Trump administration’s nationwide policies expanding arrests at immigration courthouses and the duration for detaining noncitizens in short-term facilities, finding the actions of US Immigration ⁠and Customs Enforcement and another government arm “arbitrary and capricious”.

US district judge P Casey Pitts of the northern district of California on Tuesday vacated ICE’s ⁠policies that had rescinded previous strictures on arrests at immigration courthouses and allowed detainees to be held in short-term cells for up ‌to 72 hours. He ‌did the same for a similar policy undertaken by the US Department of Justice’s ‌executive office for immigration review that removed limits on courthouse arrests.

The 71-page ruling, issued in a case brought by an asylum seeker arrested upon departing a routine hearing at a San Francisco immigration court, struck down key parts of the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement policies. Judge Pitts, appointed by Joe Biden, in effect reinstated Biden-era policies ‌that limited arrests at immigration courthouses to narrow circumstances and capped detentions in short-term facilities to 12 hours.

top 7 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] darth_grunkus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

Cool. Now make them being back all the people they kidnapped.

[-] Zephyr@sh.itjust.works 13 points 5 hours ago

The Trump presidencies have really stressed what is legal and our response towards illegal action. This is a bit like when there isn't a law saying you shouldn't fuck a horse and then someone goes and fucks a horse so now we need the no horse fucking law.

[-] VinegarChunks@lemmus.org 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

The Trump presidencies have highlighted how, effectively, the President has dictatorial power lasting from the moment he announces something until the courts get around to ruling against it , which can take from days to many months. And we have always just depended on the President to not abuse this too badly.

[-] Zephyr@sh.itjust.works 1 points 42 minutes ago

I mean we are glazing over the massive fact that they've controlled the house and the Senate as well. A president who doesn't would likely face immediate and harsh backlash otherwise.

[-] GuyFawkesV@lemmy.world 1 points 13 minutes ago

Yeah we sure showed him during his first term, didn’t we?

[-] Lasherz12@lemmy.world 11 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

This will be ignored, but it's good the ruling exists at least. Especially the cap on short term detention centers. Doesn't this judge know they need slave labor to keep the billion dollar facility slightly operational?

[-] Zephyr@sh.itjust.works 7 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Yeah the goal is to grab and detain without any connection to the family so there's no means of response and ultimately deport in which a response is nearly impossible short of the person being wealthy enough or actually a citizen.

this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2026

117 points (100.0% liked)

politics

30165 readers

2550 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News