Across the country, courthouse hallways—once sanctuaries of due process—are becoming scenes of confusion, fear, and confrontation.

In the past month alone, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has ramped up a controversial enforcement tactic: detaining noncitizens in and around local courthouses, often without a visible warrant or proper identification. From Virginia to New Hampshire, North Carolina to Massachusetts, agents have made arrests that not only alarm civil rights advocates, but also jeopardize the integrity of the American legal system itself.

Inside a Virginia courtroom, three plainclothes ICE agents—one wearing a ski mask—detained a man whose misdemeanor charges had just been dismissed. Video footage shows them refusing to present ID or a warrant, and threatening to prosecute bystanders who attempted to intervene. The local public defender, alarmed by this brazen show of force, decried what he described as “the normalization” of unlawful apprehensions under the guise of federal authority.

A similar scene played out in a New Hampshire courthouse, where agents tackled a Venezuelan man near an elevator—knocking down an elderly bystander in the process. In Boston, an ICE agent detained an immigrant during his trial, leading a municipal court judge to hold the agent in contempt (a decision later overturned by a federal judge). In North Carolina, four arrests by ICE led a county sheriff to express serious concern over the agency's lack of communication and its disruption of judicial proceedings.

This is not a new fight. During Donald Trump's first term, ICE dramatically expanded arrests at sensitive locations, including courthouses. Prior administrations, by contrast, had largely honored informal “sensitive location” policies—avoiding enforcement in spaces like schools, churches, hospitals, and courthouses. The goal: preserve public trust in institutions essential to safety and justice.

The return of these tactics under Trump's second term has reignited legal challenges and deepened fears in immigrant communities. Advocates warn that people may now avoid appearing in court—whether to testify, seek protection from abuse, or resolve child custody matters—for fear of arrest. The chilling effect is real.

Even judicial officers are under fire. In Wisconsin, Judge Hannah Dugan was recently arrested for allegedly allowing a defendant to exit her courtroom through a jury door to avoid ICE agents. The arrest, praised by Trump-appointed officials as a crackdown on “activist judges,” echoes prior federal prosecutions of judges in Massachusetts and investigations in Oregon for similar actions during Trump's first term.

While ICE defends the arrests as lawful and necessary for public safety, the optics and legal implications are troubling. In the Charlottesville case, Albemarle County Commonwealth's Attorney Jim Hingeley warned that the agents' refusal to identify themselves could have led to violent resistance from bystanders who believed they were witnessing a kidnapping.

For now, ICE's January 2025 guidance permits courthouse arrests when the agency believes an individual will be present. But the guidance—urging discretion, coordination, and minimal disruption—is often ignored, as the latest arrests demonstrate.

At Saluja Law, we stand firmly for the principle that courthouses must remain open, safe, and accessible to all—regardless of immigration status. Justice depends on participation. When fear replaces trust, and intimidation replaces order, the rule of law itself is undermined.

We urge Congress, state lawmakers, and the judiciary to reaffirm the sanctity of the courthouse. No one should have to choose between seeking justice and facing deportation.