WASHINGTON- A federal judge in Washington on Tuesday blocked the Trump administration from continuing a policy of warrantless civil immigration arrests in the District of Columbia that, she ruled, violated federal law by bypassing a required determination that the person is likely to flee before a warrant can be obtained.
U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell, an Obama appointee, granted a preliminary injunction against the Department of Homeland Security and related agencies, finding that officials had adopted and carried out a practice of making civil immigration arrests without documenting individualized probable cause that the arrestee posed an escape risk, as required by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and DHS’s own regulations.
The ruling does not halt immigration enforcement in the District but forces officials to change how such arrests are carried out while the case proceeds.
The lawsuit was brought by four noncitizens living in the District and the immigrant-rights group CASA. The individual plaintiffs, who have temporary protected status, pending asylum claims, or other applications for lawful status, allege they were seized on city streets by plainclothes officers, handcuffed, and detained without warrants or questions about their immigration history, community ties, or risk of flight. The court found that those past arrests and the plaintiffs’ ongoing exposure to similar operations gave them standing to challenge the policy.
In her opinion, Howell traced the disputed practice to an August 11, 2025, presidential declaration of a “crime emergency” in Washington and subsequent public statements by senior DHS and Border Patrol officials promising “mass immigration arrests” based on “reasonable suspicion.”
Federal law, she noted, allows warrantless civil immigration arrests only when officers have probable cause to believe that a person is in the country unlawfully and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained. Evidence in the record, she wrote, showed that agents were conducting sweeps without making or documenting that escape-risk determination.
Government lawyers argued that the court lacked jurisdiction because Congress restricted judicial review of immigration enforcement in a series of provisions in the INA, and that challenges to arrest practices had to be funneled through the immigration courts.
Howell rejected those arguments, concluding that the plaintiffs’ claims—brought under the Administrative Procedure Act—attacked a nationwide enforcement policy “contrary to law” and “in excess of statutory authority,” not an individual removal order or a discretionary decision insulated from review.
Under the order, DHS and its agents—including local officers deputized to perform immigration functions—are barred from enforcing the challenged policy and must instead comply with the statutory standard for warrantless arrests. The department must document each such arrest in the District while the injunction is in place, including the officer involved, the person arrested, and the facts supporting probable cause that the person would likely flee before a warrant could be obtained. The court also directed DHS to communicate the proper legal standard to all relevant personnel.
The case will now move forward on the merits, with the injunction preserving the status quo by requiring DHS to follow the INA’s warrantless-arrest standard as the legality of its recent D.C. operations is litigated.
The case is Escobar Molina et al v. US Department of Homeland Security.
