U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Cummings issued the order in a long-standing class-action lawsuit originally filed in 2018, titled Margarito Castañon Nava, et al. v. Department of Homeland Security, et al. The case, which has been ongoing through multiple administrations, centers on whether ICE agents can conduct warrantless arrests in or around courthouses.

The judge’s latest order not only reinforces prior limitations placed on the agency but also warns that ICE agents could face contempt penalties if they violate the court’s restrictions.

A Clash Between Immigration Enforcement and Civil Liberties.

Judge Cummings’ decision extends the court’s supervision of ICE through February 2026, citing what he called “repeated, material” violations of previous agreements. The ruling applies to ICE’s Chicago Field Office region, which includes Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Missouri, Kentucky, and Kansas.

Under the ruling, ICE agents are prohibited from making courthouse arrests without a judicial warrant, except under narrow and exceptional circumstances. Cummings also reiterated that warrantless arrests under federal law — specifically 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2) — are only valid when agents have both probable cause that an individual is removable and evidence that the person is “likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained.”

“This order is not about handcuffing law enforcement,” Cummings wrote in his opinion. “It is about ensuring that the government follows the law and respects the limits placed upon it by Congress.”

The decision represents one of the most significant judicial restrictions on immigration enforcement operations in recent years — and one that may set a precedent for similar cases nationwide.

Background of the Case

The Margarito Castañon Nava case originated when several undocumented immigrants claimed that ICE agents conducted “collateral” arrests — arrests made not directly as part of a criminal investigation but based on immigration status — at courthouses and other sensitive locations. Plaintiffs argued that these operations violated their due process rights and deterred immigrants from appearing in court, even as witnesses or victims.

In 2022, the case led to a settlement agreement that placed specific limitations on ICE operations across the region. The consent decree required agents to avoid courthouse arrests unless a judicial warrant or immediate safety concern justified the action. It also required ICE to keep records and provide regular reports to the court.

However, Cummings’ latest opinion found that ICE “unequivocally ceased compliance” with those terms in 2025. According to court documents, an internal email sent on June 11, 2025, from ICE’s principal legal advisor informed staff that the 2022 settlement was “terminated,” even though it was still in effect.

The judge called this communication “a blatant disregard of the rule of law” and extended the decree by an additional year “to compensate for the period of noncompliance.”

The New Requirements for ICE

The order goes beyond simply reimposing the old settlement terms. It introduces several new procedural safeguards that ICE must follow moving forward:

1. Documentation of “Escape Risk” — Agents must now explicitly document the reasons they believe an individual is “likely to escape” before a warrant can be obtained. This must be recorded in Form I-213 (Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien) at the time of arrest or as soon as possible thereafter.
2. Reaffirmation of Policies — ICE must “re-broadcast” the court’s restrictions to all field offices under its jurisdiction and obtain written acknowledgments from officers that they understand and will comply with the new procedures.
3. Reporting and Oversight — The agency must file regular compliance reports to the court, summarizing enforcement actions, the presence (or absence) of judicial warrants, and the documentation supporting any warrantless arrests.
4. Limits on Administrative Warrants — The court also took issue with ICE’s practice of using Form I-200 administrative warrants, often signed by field supervisors on the spot. Judge Cummings ruled that such warrants — which are internal agency forms rather than judicially authorized documents — cannot substitute for a court-issued warrant under federal law.

In his opinion, Cummings cited federal regulations 8 C.F.R. §§ 236.1(b) and 1236.1(b), which establish that administrative warrants are tied to formal charging procedures and cannot be issued preemptively during “collateral” encounters.

Government Pushback and Security Concerns

The ruling comes at a time when the federal government is under pressure to accelerate deportations and manage record numbers of illegal crossings. Homeland Security officials expressed concern that the new restrictions could hinder enforcement operations and compromise courthouse security.

A Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spokesperson said in a statement that the department would “comply with all lawful court orders,” but warned that the ruling could make it more difficult to “remove individuals who have final deportation orders and who may pose public safety threats.”

DHS also noted that courthouses have become frequent sites of protests and confrontations, requiring additional security. “The ability to act quickly in volatile environments is essential to protecting both the public and federal personnel,” the statement read.

Critics of the ruling, including several law enforcement organizations, argue that the decision ties the hands of ICE officers and gives an advantage to individuals who attempt to evade removal. “This is a dangerous precedent,” said one former ICE official who spoke on condition of anonymity. “Courthouses should be places where law is upheld — not safe zones for those ignoring immigration laws.”

Support from Civil Rights Groups

Immigrant advocacy and civil rights groups, however, hailed the ruling as a major victory for due process and for the integrity of the judicial system.

“Courthouses must be places of justice, not fear,” said Carla Núñez, an attorney with the National Immigrant Justice Center. “When people are afraid to show up to court — even to report crimes — the entire system suffers. Judge Cummings’ decision restores a measure of trust and accountability.”

Advocates have long argued that courthouse arrests discourage immigrant victims and witnesses from cooperating with law enforcement, allowing criminals to operate with less scrutiny. They say the new rules will help separate immigration enforcement from the judicial process and ensure that everyone — regardless of status — can access the courts safely.

Political and Legal Implications

The ruling is likely to deepen the ongoing national debate over the balance between immigration enforcement and civil rights protections. While the Biden administration has generally sought to limit immigration arrests at “sensitive locations” such as schools and hospitals, the push to step up deportations in 2025 led to renewed clashes between DHS and the judiciary.

Legal experts believe the government could appeal the decision, potentially sending the case to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. If upheld, the ruling could serve as a model for other jurisdictions, further restricting ICE’s ability to conduct courthouse operations without judicial oversight.

“Courthouse arrests have always occupied a gray area in immigration law,” said Professor Dana Ross, an expert in federal procedure at Northwestern University. “This ruling draws a much brighter line — and it could have ripple effects far beyond Chicago.”

Looking Ahead

For now, ICE must operate under strict judicial supervision in six states, with the court monitoring compliance until early 2026. Whether this decision will bring long-term changes to federal immigration enforcement — or simply add another layer of tension between the courts and the executive branch — remains to be seen.

Judge Cummings concluded his ruling with a pointed reminder:

“No agency, no matter how powerful, stands above the law. The rule of law applies not only to those we seek to remove — but to those who enforce its provisions.”