Original Date Announced

Multiple reports emerged across the country—including in Miami, Seattle, and Chicago—of 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 (IJs). Respondents were then arrested so they could be processed for expedited removal. Some respondents were arrested and detained even where IJs did not grant the government's motion to dismiss but instead provided time to respond to the motion. And some arrests happened 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. Prosecutors were told to give ICE officers at least two days to plan for an arrest and to give courts a 24-hour warning, as well as 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 immigration 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

ICE confirms that it is moving to dismiss immigration proceedings against certain noncitizens who arrived in the U.S. within the last two years and subsequently arresting such noncitizens at their immigration-court hearings for placement in 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

AILA published the text of an email sent by EOIR leadership 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 a regulation governing cancellation of notices to appear; and improperly provides, in conflict with the 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 class action in federal District Court against DOJ, DHS, 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 (APA) 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. That policy is addressed here. Immigration Advocates Response Collaborative v. DOJ, No. 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**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.08.01 Complaint - African Communities Together v. Lyons

African Communities Together and The Door, two organizations that work for and with noncitizens in removal proceedings, filed a lawsuit to challenge the Trump administration’s policies of authorizing arrests at immigration courthouses and dismissing noncitizens’ removal proceedings without meaningful process. The complaint alleges that the policies violate the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. African Communities Together v. Lyons, No. 1:25-cv-6366 (S.D.N.Y.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.08.08 Complaint - Barco Mercado v. Noem

Sergio Barco Mercado, a Peruvian immigrant and New Jersey resident, filed a class action lawsuit in the Southern District of New York to challenge the "crowded, squalid, and punitive" conditions of confinement at 26 Federal Plaza, a Manhattan ICE office where ICE has been detaining immigrants arrested at court hearings and ICE check-ins. The complaint alleges that ICE banned attorneys from accessing clients at the holding center, which consists of "concrete cells" designed to hold people for a matter of hours. ICE has "packed" in people "for a week or more" at a time without beds or showers; detainees sleep "on the floor next to the toilet" in cells that are "either freezing or oppressively hot," and receive "at most only two small meals a day." Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to ensure access to counsel and improve conditions of confinement. Barco Mercado v. Noem, 1:25-cv-06568 (S.D.N.Y.).

**Find the case docket here. Litigation entries are limited to initial complaints and major substantive rulings. For pleadings and additional information, use name and docket number to search Civil Rights Clearinghouse and CourtListener or visit Just Security Litigation Tracker**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.08.12 TRO - Barco Mercado v. Noem

Judge Lewis Kaplan of the Southern District of New York issues a Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO") imposing minimum standards governing physical and sanitary conditions for detainees arrested and held by ICE at 26 Federal Plaza in New York City. The TRO also requires ICE to allow detainees held there to make confidential phone calls to legal counsel and to provide detainees a fact sheet with their legal rights. ICE must ensure its Online Detainee Locator System "accurately identifies the location of each Detainee in real time or as close thereto as is reasonably possible." Plaintiffs' request for class certification and a preliminary injunction remain pending. Mercado v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-06568 (S.D.N.Y.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above.**