Chicago Judge Restricts ICE Courthouse Arrests, Setting Up Clash Over Deportations
A federal judge in Illinois has handed down a ruling sharply curbing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations—ordering that agents may not arrest illegal aliens at courthouses without a judicial warrant and warning they could face contempt if they disobey.
U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Cummings issued the order in a long-running class action, Margarito Castañon Nava, et al. v. Department of Homeland Security, et al., originally filed in 2018. The case, which began under the Obama administration, led to a 2022 consent decree restricting how ICE officers could conduct warrantless “collateral” arrests across six states under the Chicago Field Office: Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Missouri, Kentucky, and Kansas.
Now, Judge Cummings claims ICE committed “repeated, material” violations of that settlement—and has extended court supervision until 2026, tightening controls on how federal agents enforce immigration law.
The decision arrives as President Donald J. Trump’s administration moves to speed up deportations and restore law enforcement authority along the border and across federal facilities, including courthouses. Homeland Security officials warned that the ruling could make it harder to remove illegal aliens with final deportation orders and to maintain safety around federal buildings during volatile protests.
Judge Imposes New Paperwork Rules on Federal Agents
Cummings’ 91-page opinion leans heavily on procedural technicalities. Citing 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2), he ruled that warrantless immigration arrests require not only probable cause that a person is removable but also “contemporaneous facts” showing the individual is “likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained.”
ICE officers must now document that “likelihood of escape” in real time—on Form I-213—and file those records immediately. The judge ordered the agency to re-broadcast this policy to all field offices, collect written acknowledgments from each officer, and produce regular compliance reports.
Cummings also struck down ICE’s recent practice of issuing administrative warrants (Form I-200) on the spot during field operations without first completing a Notice to Appear. He called the practice a “workaround” meant to evade Congress’s statutory arrest limits.
Court Extends Oversight and Grants Relief to Detained Aliens
The court extended the existing consent decree through February 2026, claiming ICE “unequivocally ceased compliance” in mid-2025. The opinion highlights a June 11, 2025, internal email in which ICE’s principal legal advisor reportedly told staff that the settlement had “terminated,” even though enforcement motions were still pending.
Cummings disagreed, kept the decree in place, and ordered ICE to provide monthly data logs of all qualifying arrests in the Northern District of Illinois.
The court granted relief in 22 of 26 sample cases reviewed, finding ICE in violation of the settlement. One cluster, labeled the “Liberty 12,” involved a February 2025 enforcement sweep at a Missouri restaurant. The judge ruled that employees “were not free to leave” and that ICE failed to justify any “likelihood of escape.”
In another case, Cummings sided with a detainee whose statement contradicted ICE’s Form I-213 narrative, accusing officers of “misstating basic facts” about the suspect’s community ties. The ruling mandates that agents ask and record such details during any arrest to justify probable cause.
The order further requires ICE to refund immigration bonds, lift release conditions, pay plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees, and provide remedial training for involved officers—with proof of completion filed with the court.
Homeland Security Pushes Back
The Department of Homeland Security said it “intends to comply with all lawful court orders and is addressing this matter with the court,” but also defended ICE’s statutory authority to arrest illegal aliens wherever they are found.
“We aren’t some medieval kingdom; there are no legal sanctuaries where you can hide and avoid the consequences for breaking the law,” DHS said in a statement. “Nothing in the Constitution prohibits arresting a lawbreaker where you find them.”
Critics say the decision effectively creates “sanctuary courthouses” and undermines federal immigration enforcement at a time when illegal crossings and criminal re-entries are at record highs. The ruling could also embolden progressive state officials and activist judges seeking to shield illegal immigrants from deportation under President Trump’s renewed America First border policy.
With the court now threatening contempt charges against federal officers for doing their jobs, the battle between federal enforcement authority and activist judicial oversight is far from over.