Judge blocks Trump administration from arresting migrants at immigration courts
Federal agents patrol the halls of immigration court at the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building on March 04, 2026 in New York City. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from arresting migrants at immigration courts, saying that officials violated the Administrative Procedures Act in enacting the policy.
U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts of the Northern District of California wrote in a blistering 71-page decision Tuesday that policies by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Executive Office of Immigration Review were “arbitrary and capricious” and violated the APA, and he issued nationwide injunction blocking the practice across the United States.
“Because the record before the Court demonstrates ICE and EOIR failed to provide reasoned explanations for their actions, the Court concludes that each of the challenged policies is arbitrary and capricious in contravention of the APA,” he wrote in his decision.
The Justice Department attempted to curtail the request to only the Northern District of California instead of a nationwide block.
Scenes of migrants being arrested at immigration courts across the country, including notably in New York City, drew scrutiny from local lawmakers and advocacy organizations, who said migrants were often arrested after their deportation cases were dismissed.
Deportation hearings in immigration court are legal proceedings initiated by the Department of Homeland Security in which an immigration judge determines whether a migrant should be removed from the United States. Often, an immigration judge will dismiss a case to allow the individual to pursue legal relief by seeking asylum, according to attorneys. Other times, DHS attorneys will request dismissals if the individuals are not a priority for removal.
In most cases, when a deportation case is dismissed, it is a positive outcome for a migrant. Immigration attorneys ABC News spoke with said the Trump administration has been using dismissals to detain people at immigration courts and place them into expedited removal without allowing them to fight their cases.
In previous years, ICE has prioritized conducting courthouse arrests of people who were considered risks to the public or were convicted or accused of certain crimes.
The Trump administration had argued that an executive order issued by President Donald Trump allowed for the agencies to enact the policy, but Judge Pitts disagreed.
“It is now clear that the lack of connection between ICE’s stated rationales for the 2025 courthouse-arrest policies and the expansion of arrests at immigration courthouses results not from merely unreasoned decision making but a complete lack of decision making. As the government recently revealed, contrary to its prior representations, ICE’s 2025 courthouse arrest policies do not cover immigration courthouses at all,” he wrote.
That is a reference to a case in New York, in which the DOJ notified a judge that it had been erroneously relying on an ICE memo to justify arrests at immigration courts, according to a court filing. In fact, the ICE memo does not apply to civil immigration enforcement actions in or near immigration courts, the DOJ told the judge in that case.
James Percival, the DHS general counsel, said Tuesday’s ruling is “anti-American.”
“When a judge sentences a defendant, the defendant is taken into custody. If an alien is ordered removed by an immigration judge, the same should happen,” he said in a post on X. “A district judge ordering otherwise is naked judicial activism in service of an anti-American, open borders agenda.”
Tulsi Gabbard, director of National Intelligence, following a prime-time address to the nation in the Cross Hall of the White House in Washington, DC, US, on Wednesday, April 1, 2026. (Alex Brandon/AP Photo/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard is resigning from her post, a source familiar confirmed to ABC News on Friday.
The news was first reported by Fox News.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
Richard Kahn, an accountant for convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, arrives for a House Oversight Committee deposition about Epstein, in Rayburn building on Wednesday, March 11, 2026. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Members of the House Oversight Committee are set to depose a key member of Jeffrey Epstein’s inner circle who for more than two decades had a critical role managing his personal, financial and legal affairs.
Darren Indyke served as Epstein’s longtime attorney since the mid-1990s.
As Epstein for years attempted to avoid scrutiny while orchestrating a notorious sex trafficking operation, Indyke — together with accountant Richard Kahn — allegedly helped him navigate legal issues and formed part of the financier’s inner circle. Indyke allegedly helped facilitate at least three sham marriages between Epstein’s victims and withdrew hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash for Epstein, according to one lawsuit, and attested to Epstein’s character when he faced legal scrutiny.
“Knowing that they would earn millions of dollars in exchange for facilitating Epstein’s sex abuse and trafficking, Indyke and Kahn chose money and power over following the law,” alleged one lawsuit that Indyke and Kahn agreed to settle with no admission of wrongdoing.
Neither man has been charged with any crimes. They both deny any wrongdoing and say they were unaware of Epstein’s crimes while working for him.
The deposition Thursday comes as the House Oversight Committee attempts to zero in on members of Epstein’s inner circle to better understand how the disgraced financier was able to commit decades of crime with seeming impunity.
Following higher profile depositions of people like billionaire Leslie Wexner as well as Bill and Hillary Clinton, the questioning of both Indyke and Kahn arguably presents the committee with their strongest opportunity to learn more about Epstein’s life and crimes.
“I was not aware of the nature or extent of Epstein’s abuse of so many women until after Epstein’s death,” Kahn told lawmakers last week, according to his prepared remarks. “However, it pains me to think, and I deeply regret, that I may have unknowingly assisted Epstein in any way.”
Executor of Epstein’s Trust In a will signed two days before he was found dead in a Manhattan jail cell, Epstein named Kahn and Indyke as the co-executors of his estate and bequeathed them $25 million and $50 million, respectively. At the time of his death, Epstein’s estate was valued as much as $650 million. It was last valued at approximately $127 million, according to an October 2025 court filing, after paying out multiple settlements to Epstein’s victims.
As co-executors of Epstein’s estate, Indyke and Kahn recently agreed to settle a proposed class-action lawsuit brought by Epstein’s victims that accused them of “facilitation, participation, and concealment of Epstein’s illegal conduct” for their own financial gain.
According to the lawsuit, both men helped “structure Epstein’s bank accounts and cash withdrawals to give Epstein and his associates access to large amounts of cash in furtherance of sex trafficking.”
“The Epstein Enterprise would not have existed for the duration it did and at its scope and scale, without the collaboration and support of others. No one, except perhaps Ghislaine Maxwell, was as essential and central to Epstein’s operation as these Defendants,” the lawsuit alleged.
The settlement did not include an admission of wrongdoing and still needs to be approved by a judge. Though the lawsuit was brought against them personally, the $25-35 million settlement would be paid by Epstein’s estate, according to the settlement terms.
“Neither Mr. Indyke nor Mr. Kahn socialized with Mr. Epstein, and both men reject as categorically false any suggestion that they knowingly facilitated or assisted Mr. Epstein in his sexual abuse or trafficking of women, or that they were aware of his actions while they provided professional services to him,” an attorney for the men told ABC News in December.
Allegedly arranged sham marriages In a lawsuit filed by government of the U.S. Virgin Islands, Indyke and Kahn were alleged to have helped facilitate at least three sham marriages created to secure immigration status for some of Epstein’s victims, further securing control of the women and ensuring they could remain in the United States.
“The victims were coerced into participating in these arranged marriages, and understood that there would be consequences, including serious reputational and bodily harm, if they refused to enter a marriage or attempted to end it,” the complaint alleged.
According to a civil lawsuit filed in 2019 by an anonymous accuser, one woman alleged that Epstein’s longtime attorney — not explicitly named as Indyke in the lawsuit — helped prepare the legal paperwork for the marriage, going as far as arranging photographs “to give the appearance that the marriage was legitimate.”
“When the victim inquired about getting divorced … Indyke tried to talk her out of a divorce and threatened that she would lose Epstein’s protection,” a 2024 lawsuit alleged.
Files released earlier this year by the Department of Justice appeared to reference some of the marriages allegedly arranged by Indyke and Kahn.
“Good morning Jeffrey! We are going now to get marriage license,” an unidentified individual wrote Epstein in 2013. “She is asking if it’s possible to meet with you? Because she has some questions.”
Withdrawing thousands in cash Court filings as well as documents released by the Department of Justice suggested that both Indyke and Kahn played integral roles in managing Epstein’s wealth and overseeing his regular expenses, including alleged payments to women.
According to the Virgin Islands lawsuit — which was settled by the Epstein estate with no admission of wrongdoing — Indyke and Kahn allegedly arranged payments from Epstein’s personal, corporate and nonprofits bank accounts to victims. That lawsuit alleged that Epstein — together with Kahn and Indyke — managed more than 140 different bank accounts.
According to documents released by the DOJ, Indyke served as an officer for many of the holding and shell companies related to Epstein’s real estate and financial holdings.
A 2020 settlement between Deutsche Bank and the New York state financial regulator also suggested that an attorney for Epstein — who sources told ABC News is Indyke — methodically withdrew cash for Epstein in a manner they said intentionally avoided scrutiny.
Limiting the withdrawals to $7,500 in cash — the maximum amount permitted and below the threshold to trigger concerns — Indyke allegedly withdrew hundreds of thousands of dollars for Epstein over four years. While the transactions were below the $10,000 limit to trigger an alert to the Treasury Department, a report by New York State’s Department of Financial Services faulted Deutsche Bank for ignoring red flags about Epstein’s bank accounts.
Jail visits and a character reference After securing a plea deal in Florida, Jeffrey Epstein was visited in jail frequently by Indyke, according to visitor logs maintained by the Palm Beach Sheriff. Indyke also helped secure a lenient work-release program for Epstein by vouching for his employment, allowing Epstein to leave the jail for up to 16 hours a day, ABC News reported in 2021.
Prior to Epstein’s plea deal, Indyke also attested to Epstein’s character. According to a letter sent from defense lawyers to prosecutors in Florida, Indyke vouched for Epstein’s character and claimed that Epstein provided financial and emotional support to his family.
“Although Jeffrey was adamant that we owed him nothing, Jeffery honored us by agreeing to be the godfather of our children,” the letter quoted Indyke.
U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem testifies before the House Judiciary Committee on March 04, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Heather Diehl/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The two top Democrats on the House and Senate Judiciary committees are referring outgoing Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem to the Department of Justice for perjury due to her testimony to congressional committees earlier this month, according to a letter sent to Attorney General Pam Bondi.
Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois and Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland allege that Noem’s statements on a variety of topics including DHS following judges’ orders and a controversial multimillion-dollar ad campaign “appear to violate criminal statutes prohibiting perjury and knowingly making false statements to Congress.”
In response to the letter, a DHS spokesperson said “Any claim that Secretary Noem committed perjury is categorically FALSE.”
A Justice Department spokesperson said, “The DOJ has received the latest political stunt from the Democrats who should instead vote to reopen the Department of Homeland Security.”
President Donald Trump fired Noem the day after her testimony concluded and announced that he was appointing her to a new role as special envoy to the Shield of the Americas, a coalition of Latin American countries the White House says is committed to cooperating with the U.S. in taking on drug cartels and securing the U.S. border. He said he had nominated Oklahoma Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin to head DHS when Noem’s tenure ended on March 31.
The Democrats allege that Noem misled Congress when she said that DHS had followed court orders while federal judges have ruled a number of times that it had not.
They also cited her testimony over contracts for a $220 million DHS ad campaign and her assertion that Trump had signed off on it. A day later, Trump told Reuters, “I never knew anything about it.”
“New public reporting, however, indicates that those statements may have been false. It has been reported that not only did the Secretary “handpick” four companies for the ad campaign, but procurement records show the “ad work was awarded using ‘other than full and open competition,'” and the four companies were politically connected to Noem and her allies,” according to the letter.
Durbin and Raskin also allege Noem misled Congress when she testified that top adviser Corey Lewandowski had “no authority” to make decisions for the department.
“Secretary Noem’s denial of Corey Lewandowski’s role in DHS contract approval may also have been false. It has been widely reported that Mr. Lewandowski asserts approval authority over contracts and grants that exceed $100,000.27 A similar approval process reportedly exists for policy decisions, and as a recently published document shows, Mr. Lewandowski’s signature is visible above Secretary Noem’s on a February 2025 document reversing temporary protected status for Haitians.”
Lewandowski is reportedly leaving his position as a special government employee. He did not respond to ABC News’ request for comment on his future at DHS.
The Democrats also allege Noem made false statements about conditions in ICE detention centers adhering to federal detention standards while ICE internal audits documented “significant failures to meet medical care standards.”
And they say her assertion that ICE did not detain U.S. citizens is false and cited 170 cases of citizens being detained in some cases for days without an opportunity to prove their citizenship.
“Making false statements to Congress, and making false statements under oath, are federal crimes,” the letter says. “While we have low expectations that you will pursue this matter given your partisan weaponization of the Department of Justice, we note that the statute of limitations for perjury and for knowingly and willfully making false statements to Congress is five years.”
