California Sues ICE Over Courthouse Civil Immigration Arrests

California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit on October 15, 2026, challenging federal civil immigration enforcement actions in and around state courthouses. According to the state, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency has carried out disruptive and unannounced arrests since a policy change in May 2025. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and ICE.

State officials report that these courthouse enforcement actions have created a profound chilling effect on public safety and the administration of justice. Witnesses, victims, and survivors of domestic violence are allegedly too afraid to appear in court, leading to dropped criminal charges and compromised cases. The lawsuit asserts that ICE’s directive is arbitrary, exceeds the agency’s statutory authority, and violates the Tenth Amendment and the U.S. Constitution.

Impact on Court Attendance and Public Safety

Data cited in the lawsuit show that ICE arrests in and around California courthouses spiked after the May 2025 policy change. Average monthly arrests increased by more than 550% during the year following the change. Although a federal court vacated ICE’s directive in late June 2026 in the case of Pablo Sequen v. Albarran, enforcement actions reportedly continued through the summer and fall, with 30 civil arrests in June and 28 in July.

Officers often operate in plain clothes without identification, apprehending individuals in hallways, lobbies, parking lots, or immediately outside courtrooms. The current ICE directive does not restrict who is subject to arrest, meaning anyone from a criminal defendant to a victim or family member may be targeted. This practice has disrupted routine court operations and hindered the state’s ability to prosecute crimes.

Legal Claims Under the Lawsuit

The state’s legal challenge relies on several core arguments under the Administrative Procedure Act and the U.S. Constitution. First, California argues the enforcement directive is arbitrary and capricious because ICE failed to consider the chilling effect on access to justice and removed prior restrictions without a reasoned explanation.

Second, the state contends that the Immigration and Nationality Act was enacted against centuries of common law precedent barring civil arrests at courthouses, meaning Congress never granted ICE authority for these actions. Finally, California asserts that the federal agency is infringing upon the state’s sovereign judicial and police powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment.

What This Means for Court Attendees and Litigants

For ordinary people navigating the state’s judicial system, the ongoing enforcement actions create significant fear and uncertainty. Victims, witnesses, and family members who need to appear for hearings or seek legal redress may feel unsafe doing so. The lawsuit underscores that state courts are intended to serve justice rather than act as enforcement zones for immigration agents.

While the litigation proceeds in federal court, individuals concerned about participating in court proceedings should monitor developments and understand their rights. Because immigration policies and courthouse operations can involve complex legal questions, speaking with a qualified attorney or legal aid organization may help affected individuals evaluate their specific situation.

This article is general information based on California Attorney General and court or agency records available at publication time. It is not legal advice; laws and deadlines differ by state and by case. Published October 15, 2026.