Is It Safe to Attend Your Immigration Court Hearing in 2026?

BLOG

July 31, 2026

THE CONTEXT

Why the Rules Around Immigration Court Hearings Just Changed

In May 2025, ICE and the Department of Justice adopted a policy letting agents arrest noncitizens at immigration court hearings based on “credible information” that the person would be present.

For someone with a scheduled hearing, that information was simply their own notice to appear.

The policy rescinded 2021 guidance that had limited courthouse arrests to national-security threats, suspected terrorists or gang members, and people already convicted of a crime.

ICE also issued a nationwide waiver letting field offices hold detainees in temporary hold rooms for up to 72 hours, well beyond the 12-hour limit that had applied for years.

Courthouse arrests are not new territory for ICE: the agency’s own numbers show arrests inside New York courthouses jumped from 11 in 2016 to 144 in 2017, a spike that helped prompt the 2021 limits in the first place.

Immigration judges reported the same pattern repeating in 2025 — one judge described a “drastic decline” in master calendar attendance once ICE agents became a regular presence in her courtroom.

On June 23, 2026, U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts of the Northern District of California vacated both 2025 policies in Sequen v. Albarran, a nationwide class action.

Pitts found ICE acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” under the Administrative Procedure Act, never acknowledging that it was reversing a rule that governed immigration courts specifically.

The ruling restores the pre-2025 baseline everywhere: courthouse arrests are limited to exceptional circumstances, and hold-room detention is capped again at 12 hours.

Under the restored rule, ICE may still make an arrest at or near an immigration court hearing, but only when:

• The person poses a national security threat.
• There is an imminent risk of death, violence, or physical harm.
• Officers are in hot pursuit of someone who poses a public safety threat.
• There is an immediate risk that evidence will be destroyed.
• No safe alternative arrest location exists, and a supervisor pre-approves the arrest.

A related New York case, African Communities Together v. Lyons, produced its own concession in March 2026, when government lawyers told the court that the 2025 memo they had cited to justify courthouse arrests never actually authorized them.

Separately, similar due-process questions about notice at immigration court hearings reached the Supreme Court in Niz-Chavez, which GWP covered when it was decided.

Source: Sequen v. Albarran, N.D. Cal. No. 5:25-cv-06487 (order dated June 23, 2026).

A REAL CASE

A Client Almost Skipped Her Own Hearing

What to Do Before Your Next Immigration Court Hearing

THE PATH FORWARD

The Ruling Is a Reset, Not a Guarantee

The Department of Homeland Security has said it will appeal the decision, calling it “judicial activism,” so the legal landscape remains unsettled.

Paper legality does not always match what happens at a courthouse door — advocates have reported cases where agents disregarded earlier court orders during the litigation.

A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said after the March 2026 admission in the New York case that ICE would “continue to arrest illegal aliens at immigration courts following their proceedings.”

The Pitts ruling covers immigration courts (EOIR); arrests at state family or criminal courthouses depend on separate state laws, like New York’s Protect Our Courts Act.

That distinction matters most for domestic violence and other survivors: a 2025 national survey found 70.3% of advocates report immigrant survivors are concerned about attending court on matters related to their abuser.

Any appeal from Judge Pitts’ order would go to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and there is no set timeline for how long that process takes.

Vacatur also does not automatically undo an arrest or detention that already happened — if that applies to you or a family member, ask an attorney whether the ruling changes anything for that specific case.

GWP tracked a similarly consequential 2026 ruling in our coverage of the Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship decision — both show how quickly immigration enforcement rules can shift on appeal.

The fear driving people to skip hearings altogether is well documented, and we’ve written separately about its toll in our piece on immigrant mental health.

Until any appeal is resolved, review your specific case with an attorney before every hearing, rather than relying on this ruling alone.

References

1. Sequen v. Albarran, N.D. Cal. No. 5:25-cv-06487 (order, June 23, 2026)
2. African Communities Together v. Lyons, S.D.N.Y. No. 1:25-cv-06366 (docket)
3. New York Protect Our Courts Act, NYSenate.gov
4. ICE Form I-200, Warrant for Arrest of Alien
5. ICE Form I-205, Warrant of Removal/Deportation

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney before taking any action. · Last verified: July 31, 2026 · Reviewed by: Kathia Quirós, Immigration Attorney · GWP Immigration Law