Many State Court Report Readers are likely to arrest Judge Hanna Dugan last month, as the FBI allegedly arrested immigrants last month. The arrest was described by U.S. Attorney General General Pam Bondy as “sent a very strong message” to a judge she characterized as “crazy.”
Dugan’s arrest has been widely criticized as a threat to the fair management of our legal system. What’s less attention is its connection with recent policy changes that dramatically increased the incidence of ice outages in state courts. In a recent article, State Court Report Editor Douglas Keith details how the January directive from the Department of Homeland Security removed most restrictions on court immigration enforcement. Those changes “set federal law enforcement on the course of conflict with state courts,” Keith argues.
ICE court arrests rarely occurred until 2017, when the first Trump administration began to rely heavily on immigration enforcement tools. As Keith details, the results were confusing. The court hallway has turned into a chased scene. Fearing the victim would move forward, domestic violence protection orders plummeted. The Massachusetts judge was charged with obstruction of justice in 2019 under similar circumstances as Justice Dugan, but the charges were eventually removed after the administration was changed. The Biden administration has also introduced new restrictions on ice court arrests, calls from judges, prosecutors, victim advocates and court administrators. Now, DHS has rolled back these reforms.
The ICE court arrest creates inevitable friction between immigration authorities and judges. They need to maintain orderly lawsuits and create a safe environment for those who attend the courts. As a group of 75 retired state and federal judges explained in a 2018 letter to the DHS, “Judges simply can’t do their job — and our judicial system cannot function effectively if victims, defendants, witnesses and families do not feel safe in access to the court.”
As Keith argues, the Trump administration should restore Biden-era policies and place restrictions on court immigration enforcement. However, it is also worth noting that there are steps the state can take to alleviate the threat of ice arrests and protect judges and court staff.
First, in conducting arrests, ICE frequently relies on administrative warrants, which does not require judge sign-offs, but also has a more limited legal effect. State may adopt court rules or laws that prevent arrests in state courts where there is no judicial warrant, as was done during the first Trump administration. These policies provide a model for states trying to avoid the “collision course” between ice and courts as Keith describes.
It can also prohibit state officials from promoting or cooperating with immigration enforcement activities, including providing information within their rights as a federalist issue. At the very least, they can establish clear policies and chain of command when ice agents enter the court, so court staff are not forced to make decisions on the spot. Finally, courts could also expand their offering for remote litigation to ensure that the courts are safe spaces for those who need to access them.
Alicia Bannon is director and editor-in-chief of the Judicial Program at Brennan Judicial Center for Justice. State court report.
Suggested Quote: Alicia Bannon, What can the state do to mitigate the threat of an ice halt in court?sᴛᴛᴇcᴏᴜʀᴛrᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (May 9, 2025), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/what-can-tates-do-mitigate-threat-ice-arrests-courthou