Federal-state clash: A recent federal directive restoring courthouse arrests by immigration agents has prompted Democratic-led states and some judges to impose or seek bans on civil arrests at state courthouses. Advocates warn these operations chill access to justice, since many detainees have no criminal convictions, while federal officials argue the practice is lawful and pragmatic. Legislative action in Connecticut, Illinois and Rhode Island, plus a federal court decision upholding New York’s courthouse protections, signal the dispute will remain active in legislatures and courts.
Democratic States Push Back as ICE Resumes Courthouse Arrests
Federal-state clash: A recent federal directive restoring courthouse arrests by immigration agents has prompted Democratic-led states and some judges to impose or seek bans on civil arrests at state courthouses. Advocates warn these operations chill access to justice, since many detainees have no criminal convictions, while federal officials argue the practice is lawful and pragmatic. Legislative action in Connecticut, Illinois and Rhode Island, plus a federal court decision upholding New York’s courthouse protections, signal the dispute will remain active in legislatures and courts.
07:00 PM, 11/19/2025Politics
States and courts clash with federal immigration agents over courthouse arrests
Federal immigration agents have resumed making arrests at state courthouses after a recent federal directive restored broader authority to carry out such actions, reversing limits put in place by the prior administration. The renewed activity has prompted Democratic lawmakers, judges and advocates in several states to impose or propose restrictions aimed at protecting access to courts and preserving orderly judicial proceedings.
Observers in Stamford, Connecticut, report multiple arrests near Stamford Superior Court. In one widely reported August incident, agents followed two men into a restroom.
“Is it an activity you want to be interfering with, people fulfilling their duty when they’re called to court and going to court? For me, it’s insanity,”
State responses: legislation and court rulings
Responding to local concerns, Connecticut lawmakers recently approved limits on civil immigration arrests and restrictions on federal agents wearing masks at state courthouses; the governor is expected to sign the bill. Illinois enacted a ban on civil immigration arrests at courthouses in October, and Rhode Island lawmakers are preparing to revive similar legislation after an earlier effort stalled.
New York’s Protect Our Courts Act, enacted in 2020, bars civil arrests at state and local courthouses without a judicial warrant and protects people traveling to and from court. The Justice Department sued to overturn that law, arguing it conflicted with federal authority, but a federal judge dismissed the suit, writing that the government could not compel states to provide courthouse resources to aid federal enforcement.
Why courthouses are targeted and the concerns they raise
Courthouses are attractive locations for immigration enforcement for several reasons: calendars and filings can reveal who will be present, public areas lack the legal protections of private homes, and many people have strong incentives to appear for hearings. Advocates say these arrests chill court access and deter victims, witnesses and tenants from pursuing justice.
“One of the cornerstones of our democracy is open access to the courts. When that access is denied or chilled, all of us are made less safe and less free,”
Data from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) shows that, as of Sept. 21, 71.5% of ICE detainees had no criminal convictions, underscoring advocates’ concerns that many civil immigration arrests target noncriminal cases.
Federal position and legal conflicts
Department of Homeland Security officials maintain that arrests at courthouses are lawful and practical. A DHS spokesperson said the Constitution does not prohibit arresting individuals where they are found and argued that courthouse arrests can conserve resources and be safer for officers because targets often pass through security checkpoints.
ICE’s internal guidance advises agents to conduct civil arrests, “to the extent practicable,” in non-public areas of courthouses, avoid public entrances, act discreetly to minimize disruption, and refrain from operations where local laws bar such arrests. Nevertheless, the federal government has pursued litigation and prosecutions tied to courthouse incidents. For example, federal prosecutors charged a Wisconsin state judge with concealing an individual and obstructing a proceeding after she allegedly helped a person avoid ICE agents at a Milwaukee courthouse; the judge pleaded not guilty and has called the prosecution unprecedented.
Politics, public safety and next steps
State-level reactions split along partisan lines. Some Republican lawmakers argue that state officials should not impede federal enforcement and have proposed measures to prohibit interference with ICE. Advocates and many judicial officials counter that preserving safe, accessible courthouses is essential to ensuring that people can testify, pursue restraining orders, and resolve civil matters like evictions.
Lawmakers and court officials say the dispute reflects a broader federal-state tension over sovereignty and the limits of federal enforcement within state-controlled spaces. With legislation advancing in multiple states and ongoing litigation in federal courts, the confrontation over courthouse arrests is likely to continue shaping policy and courtroom practice nationwide.