Trump Immigration Policies Face Split Court Rulings

California Court Strikes Down Courthouse Arrest Expansion

A federal judge in California vacated the Trump administration’s nationwide policies expanding arrests at immigration courthouses and the duration for detaining noncitizens in short-term facilities. US District Judge P. Casey Pitts of the northern district of California found the actions of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and another government arm “arbitrary and capricious” on Tuesday. The 71-page ruling effectively reinstated Biden-era policies that limited arrests at immigration courthouses to narrow circumstances and capped detentions in short-term facilities to 12 hours.

The ruling emerged from a case brought by an asylum seeker arrested upon departing a routine hearing at a San Francisco immigration court. This case struck down key parts of the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement policies. Judge Pitts, appointed by Joe Biden, vacated ICE’s policies that had rescinded previous strictures on arrests at immigration courthouses and allowed detainees to be held in short-term cells for up to 72 hours. He applied the same standard to a similar policy undertaken by the US Department of Justice’s executive office for immigration review that removed limits on courthouse arrests.

The judge found that the Trump administration failed to provide “reasoned explanations” for rescinding previous policies as required under the Administrative Procedure Act. Previous guidance limited arrests at courthouses to circumstances such as national security threats, imminent danger, and “hot pursuit” of someone posing a public safety risk. According to the ruling, Congress has required federal agencies to justify their actions for 80 years, emphasizing the need for thoughtful decision-making and sound reasons for following a chosen course.

Administration Officials Criticize Ruling as Judicial Activism

James Percival, the US Department of Homeland Security’s general counsel, criticized the ruling on Twitter/X with strong language. He called it “naked judicial activism in service of an anti-American, open borders agenda”, signaling the administration’s intent to challenge the decision. This reaction reflects the administration’s broader stance on immigration enforcement, which has ramped up arrests of immigrants suspected of being in the United States illegally since Trump took office in January. The administration has pursued an aggressive deportation push as a cornerstone of its border security agenda.

Appeals Court Authorizes Expanded Fast-Track Deportation Process

In a contrasting development, a federal appeals court cleared the way on Tuesday for the Trump administration to expand a fast-track deportation process that allows for the expedited removal of immigrants living far from the border. A panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 to overturn a decision by a judge who in August 2025 blocked the US Department of Homeland Security’s move to expand who qualifies for expedited removal. The expedited removal process has for nearly three decades been used to quickly return migrants apprehended at the border.

In January 2025, the administration expanded its scope to cover noncitizens apprehended anywhere in the United States who could not show that they had been in the country for two years. This policy mirrored one the Trump administration adopted in 2019 that the Biden administration later rescinded. After the immigrant rights advocacy group Make the Road New York sued, US District Judge Jia Cobb blocked the enforcement of those new policies, saying they violate the constitutional due process rights of migrants who could be apprehended anywhere in the United States.

Split Panel Decision Highlights Judicial Divide

The DC Circuit disagreed in a ruling authored by Circuit Judge Justin Walker, a Trump appointee, who said that the Trump administration was allowed to expand “expedited removal to the maximum extent allowed by Congress”. He argued that migrants receive notice that DHS is placing them in expedited removal and receive a chance to object, including by showing that they have been continually present in the United States for two years. Walker wrote that the district court’s findings show Congress’s expedited screening system operates quickly and with practical constraints, features the statute itself contemplates, and do not show that the challenged directives deprive aliens of a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

US Circuit Judge Neomi Rao, also appointed by Trump, joined his opinion in large part. However, US Circuit Judge Robert Wilkins, an appointee of Barack Obama, dissented. Wilkins objected to allowing migrants to be subjected to the fast-track deportation process without even being asked how long they have been living in the United States, saying such a procedure “is woefully inadequate for persons encountered in the interior of the country”.

James Percival, DHS’s general counsel, said in a statement that the ruling “vindicated our decision to apply the law as written”. The contrasting court decisions highlight the deep judicial divide over immigration enforcement policies and underscore the complex legal battles surrounding the administration’s approach to border security.

Intelligence Office Faces Major Staff Reductions

In a separate but significant development, several staff members have reportedly been fired from the US office of the director of national intelligence (DNI). These firings come less than a week after Donald Trump appointed Bill Pulte as the acting director after former director Tulsi Gabbard announced she was leaving the post in late May. According to CNN, which first reported the firings on Monday, political appointees with ties to Gabbard were among those purged, with ABC News reporting that cuts to the National Terrorism Center were expected to be particularly large.

CBS reported on Tuesday that more than 50 career and political staff members had been dismissed, with six individuals fired and 45 “sent back to their home agencies”. CNN first reported that Pulte, who also leads the federal housing finance agency, was considering the dismissal of hundreds of staff members on June 19 on the same day he assumed the role of acting director. The DNI has not responded to requests for comment on the reported firings.

Congressional Leaders Express Concerns Over Intelligence Cuts

On Monday, Representative James Himes and Senator Mark Warner, the top Democrats on the House and Senate intelligence committees respectively, sent a letter to Pulte to voice their concerns about making substantive changes to the DNI without consulting Congress.

“Any large cuts would follow on a substantial downsizing that has already occurred in 2025 and risk jeopardizing the mission of an organization explicitly created after 9/11 to prevent any future such terrorist attack,” the letter reads.

Pulte also faced skepticism from Republican senator Thom Tillis, who told reporters on Tuesday that Pulte should conduct an analysis at the DNI and eliminate only the people whose jobs can be either automated or never should have been there.

“My guess is based on his past experience, it’s going to be another hot, steaming pile of Doge shit,” Tillis, who is retiring, continued. “I think he’s an incompetent sycophant and not the right person to lead DNI, and you’re undermining ultimately what the confirmed administrator should be doing.”

Last August, former director Gabbard announced a 40% reduction in the DNI’s workforce. She said the firings were due to the office becoming bloated and inefficient, and claimed that the broader intelligence community was “rife with abuse of power, unauthorized leaks of classified intelligence, and politicized weaponization of intelligence”. These developments underscore the broader administrative changes taking place across multiple federal agencies under the current administration’s restructuring efforts.