A federal judge has vacated a Trump administration policy that authorized arrests inside U.S. immigration courthouses, according to Politico. The order removes a directive that had permitted federal immigration officers to detain people at the buildings where they were appearing for removal hearings, bond motions and asylum claims.

What did the policy allow?

Under the vacated directive, officers from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and partner agencies could carry out civil immigration arrests in courthouse lobbies, hallways and adjacent areas. The practice covered individuals attending hearings before the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), the Department of Justice component that runs the immigration court system.

The rule applied nationwide with no fixed numerical cap on arrests or on the number of courts covered. In effect, anyone entering an immigration courthouse — respondents, witnesses, family members, attorneys and their staff, contractors and journalists — could be subject to questioning or arrest on an administrative immigration warrant.

Who is affected by the ruling?

The decision directly affects several groups who must appear at EOIR courthouses:

• Respondents in removal (deportation) proceedings with scheduled hearings
• Asylum applicants seeking protection in the United States
• Witnesses, family members and accompaniers attending hearings
• Attorneys, legal aides and accredited representatives working on cases
• Court staff, building maintenance crews and federal contractors

Why did the policy draw legal challenges?

Civil rights groups, immigration attorneys and several state and local governments had filed suits arguing that courthouse arrests discouraged people from attending hearings, chilled access to counsel and undermined the integrity of court proceedings. They pointed to instances where individuals were detained in lobbies or parking lots moments before or after scheduled hearings. The Trump administration defended the practice as a legitimate interior enforcement tool and a response to so-called "sanctuary" policies in some jurisdictions.

What changes now?

With the policy vacated, federal officers can no longer rely on the directive to justify arrests inside immigration courthouses. The ruling does not strip officers of their general arrest authority, and arrests off courthouse property, or pursuant to judicial warrants, remain permissible. Individuals with pending cases should continue to appear at scheduled hearings unless counsel advises otherwise.

What happens next?

Vacating a policy typically returns the matter to the legal status that existed before the directive. The administration can appeal, seek a stay pending appeal, or issue a revised rule. The full Politico report identifies the ruling but, in the available summary, does not name the court, the judge, the docket number or the exact decision date.

Where to verify the official record

Readers seeking the signed order, the case number and the court's reasoning should consult PACER, the federal courts' electronic filing system, or the court's own docket. EOIR also posts operational guidance on its website when court operations change. Anyone facing an immigration court date should rely on their attorney or an accredited representative, not on news reports alone, for case-specific advice.