Original Date Announced

Beginning around May 21, 2025, multiple reports emerged across the country—including in Miami, Seattle, and Chicago—of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel arresting and detaining large numbers of noncitizen respondents attending Immigration Court hearings. Many of these arrests followed motions to dismiss removal proceedings filed by ICE trial attorneys that were granted by Immigration Judges. In those cases, respondents were arrested so that they could be process for expedited removal. Some respondents were arrested and detained even where Immigration Judges did not grant the government's motion to dismiss but instead provided respondents additional time to respond to the motion. Some respondents were arrested for the pendency of removal proceedings even where no motion to dismiss was filed.

According to the New York Times, ICE circulated an internal memo on May 20, 2025, instructing ICE trial attorneys to help deportation officers with arrests at immigration courthouses by moving to dismiss immigration cases for noncitizens who would then be subject to expedited removal. Prosecutors were told to give ICE officers at least two days to plan for an arrest in court and to give the courts a 24-hour warning, and to provide deportation officers “the exact location of the courtroom at which the alien’s hearing is being held and an estimate of the time frame for the hearing.” The operations constitute a "significant break from past practice, when emigration officials largely steered clear of courthouse arrests out of concern that they would deter people from complying with orders.”

Trump 2.0 [ID # 1883]

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

DHS Statement to Fox News Re: ICE dismissing pending cases to initiate expedited removal - X

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement confirms that it is moving to dismiss immigration proceedings against certain noncitizens who arrived in the United States within the last two years and subsequently arresting such noncitizens at their immigration court hearings so that they may be processed for expedited removal. In a statement, DHS asserted that "if [an immigrant has] a valid credible fear claim, they will continue in immigration proceedings, but if no valid claim is found, aliens will be subject to a swift deportation."

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.05.30 EOIR issues guidance to immigration judges on dismissals and other case adjudications

In connection with the new practice described above of ICE Trial Attorneys moving to dismiss pending cases so that they can instead be processed for expedited removal, AILA published the text of an email sent by EOIR leadership pon May 30, 2025, to Assistant Chief Immigration Judges to “ensure the expeditious adjudication of cases.” The guidance states that cases should not be reset for oral decision and that oral decisions “must be completed within the same hearing slot on the day testimony and arguments are concluded.” It also advises that “Motions to Dismiss may be made orally and decided from the bench,” without additional documentation or briefing. Finally, the guidance asks judges to ensure familiarity with Policy Memo 25-06, which authorizes ICE enforcement actions in EOIR space.

AILA states that the email instruction conflicts with 8 CFR 1003.23, which specifies that final orders of immigration judges “shall be in writing”; inaccurately quotes regulation governing cancellation of notices to appear; and improperly provides, in conflict with immigration court practice manual, that a 10-day response period to a filing for master calendar hearings is not required.

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.07.16 Complaint - IARC v. DOJ

Immigrants and legal advocates filed a federal class action lawsuit in the D.C. District Court against the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, and other government defendants to challenge their policies of arresting immigrants attending their immigration court hearings. The litigants seek to certify a class of noncitizens who have been arrested at or near courthouses on the date of their removal hearings and noncitizens whose removal proceedings have been dismissed without their consent. The plaintiffs claim that the courthouse arrests are arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment right to due process and are requesting both declaratory and injunctive relief.

The complaint separately alleges that "DHS issued written Guidance instructing DHS agents to place noncitizens who have been in the country for more than two years in expedited removal if the noncitizen received an NTA within two years after they arrived in the United States" and argues that this policy is arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law. Immigration Advocates Response Collaborative v. Dep't of Justice, 1:25-cv-02279 (D.D.C.).

Link to case here. Our litigation entries generally report only the initial complaint and any major substantive filings or decisions. For additional information, CourtListener provides access to PACER and all available pleadings. Other sites that track litigation in more detail or organize cases by topic include Civil Rights Clearinghouse, Justice Action Center, National Immigration Litigation Alliance, and Just Security.