What Can States Do to Mitigate the Threat of ICE Arrests in Courthouses?
Wisconsin trial Judge Hannah Dugan’s high‑profile arrest renews focus on the impact of ICE enforcement inside state courthouses.
Many State Court Report readers likely followed the FBI’s arrest of Milwaukee trial court Judge Hannah Dugan last month for allegedly obstructing an immigration arrest. The arrest — complete with handcuffs and a perp walk — was described by U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi as “sending a very strong message” to judges she characterized as “deranged.”
Dugan’s arrest has rightly been broadly criticized as a threat to the fair operation of our legal system. What’s received less attention is its connection to recent policy changes that have dramatically increased the incidence of ICE arrests in state courthouses. In a recent article, State Court Report editor Douglas Keith details how a January directive from the Department of Homeland Security removed most restrictions on immigration enforcement in courthouses. These changes, Keith argues, have “set federal law enforcement on a collision course with state courts.”
ICE courthouse arrests rarely occurred until 2017, when the first Trump administration began relying on them heavily as an immigration enforcement tool. As Keith details, the results were chaotic. Courthouse hallways turned into chase scenes. Domestic violence protective orders plummeted as victims feared coming forward. A Massachusetts judge was even charged in 2019 with obstruction of justice under similar circumstances to Judge Dugan’s, although the charges were eventually dropped after the administration changed. The Biden administration also put in place new restrictions on ICE courthouse arrests, heeding calls from judges, prosecutors, victims’ advocates, and court administrators, among others. Now, DHS has rolled back these reforms.
ICE courthouse arrests create unavoidable friction between immigration authorities and judges, who need to maintain orderly proceedings and create a safe environment for those attending court. As a group of 75 retired state and federal judges explained in a letter to DHS in 2018, “judges simply cannot do their jobs — and our justice system cannot function effectively — if victims, defendants, witnesses, and family members do not feel secure in accessing the courthouse.”
As Keith argues, the Trump administration should reinstate the Biden-era policies and put limits on immigration enforcement in courthouses. But it’s also worth noting that there are steps states can take to mitigate the threat of ICE arrests — and also protect judges and court staff.
First, in effectuating arrests, ICE frequently relies on administrative warrants, which don’t require a judge’s sign-off but which also have a more limited legal effect. States can adopt court rules or legislation barring ICE from making arrests in state courthouses absent a judicially authorized warrant, as some states did during the first Trump administration. These policies provide a model for states looking to avoid the “collision course” between ICE and courts that Keith describes.
States can also prohibit court personnel from facilitating or cooperating with immigration enforcement activities, including through providing information to ICE agents — something well within their rights as a matter of federalism. At the least, they can establish clear policies and a chain of command for when ICE agents enter courthouses, so court staff aren’t forced to make decisions on the fly. Finally, courts can also expand offerings for remote proceedings, to help ensure that courts are safe spaces for those who need to access them.
Alicia Bannon is the director of the Judiciary Program at the Brennan Center for Justice and editor in chief for State Court Report.
Suggested Citation: Alicia Bannon, What Can States Do to Mitigate the Threat of ICE Arrests in Courthouses?, Sᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (May 9, 2025), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/what-can-states-do-mitigate-threat-ice-arrests-courthouses
Related Commentary
Honoring Former Hawaii Justice Masaji Marumoto’s Legacy on the Bench
A look at Marumoto’s trailblazing career, in celebration of May’s Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (AANHPI) Heritage Month.
State Constitutional Challenges to Laws Defining Sex
A Montana court decision shows how state protections for privacy and against discrimination may invalidate laws defining sex as binary.
Defining Legal Parenthood for Same-Sex Families
Now-unconstitutional bans on same-sex marriage can undermine efforts to establish parental rights even today.
State Constitutional Protections for Transgender People After Skrmetti
A review of recent litigation in state courts provides hints about the future of trans rights.