California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit Thursday challenging the Trump administration’s practice of conducting civil immigration enforcement in and around courthouses.
The legal challenge marks Bonta’s 100th lawsuit against the administration since President Donald Trump returned to office in January 2025, but the White House is pointing to court rulings up holding immigration enforcement as lawful.
According to the California Department of Justice, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers have conducted disruptive and often violent civil immigration enforcement actions at courthouses across the state since the policy was initiated in May 2025. State officials report that witnesses, victims, and survivors of domestic violence increasingly fear appearing in court, creating what the state calls a profound chilling effect that undermines public safety and judicial operations.
“In California, our courthouses aren’t proving grounds for unlawful immigration enforcement tactics,” said Bonta at a press conference in Sacramento. “When people come knocking at the court’s door, justice should welcome them in with equal access and application regardless of their immigration status.”
Data cited in the lawsuit reveals that the average monthly number of ICE arrests in and around state courthouses spiked by more than 550% in the year following the policy change.
“Immigration arrests at courthouses have been documented in at least 22 California counties, from Los Angeles and San Diego to Shasta, Butte, and Glen, all throughout our state,” said Bonta. “That includes the five largest counties, each home to a significant percentage of non-citizen residents and families of mixed immigration status.”
The White House sharply criticized the litigation, pointing to the administration’s legal track record.
“Instead of bragging about filing frivolous lawsuits against the Trump Administration, the California Attorney General should focus on addressing problems in his own state – like the countless criminal illegal aliens extreme Democrats allow to roam free and kill innocent Americans,” White House spokeswoman Lauren Bis told The Center Square in an email Thursday. “The reality is, with well over 25 Supreme Court victories, the Administration’s policies have been consistently upheld as lawful, despite some lower courts issuing an unprecedented number of lawless injunctions.”
Acting ICE Director David Venturella and Secretary of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin are named in the lawsuit. The Center Square reached out to the Department of Homeland Security, but did not hear back by publication time.
Although a federal court vacated ICE’s written directive in late June 2026 in Pablo Sequen v. Albarran, Bonta said enforcement actions have persisted. State records show 34 reported incidents resulting in 30 civil arrests in June 2026, followed by 28 reported incidents and 28 arrests in July, with activity continuing through the summer and fall.
Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and ICE, Bonta’s lawsuit outlines multiple arguments. First, the lawsuit claims the immigration enforcement directive is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act because the agency failed to evaluate the directive’s chilling effect on access to justice and did not provide a reasoned explanation for removing prior restrictions on courthouse enforcement. Second, Bonta argues that the agency exceeded its statutory authority under the APA, asserting that the Immigration and Nationality Act was enacted against a centuries-old common law privilege barring civil arrests at courthouses – a protection Congress is presumed to have incorporated.
Finally, the lawsuit contends that the directive is contrary to constitutional rights and violates the 10th Amendment by infringing on the state’s sovereign power to maintain a judicial system, prosecute crimes and execute core police powers.
Meanwhile, legal defenders of federal policy argue that state powers cannot override federal authority.
Christopher Hajec, deputy general counsel for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, noted that the immunity doctrine protects federal officials performing their duties from state interference. For example, Hajec said that California once arrested a U.S. marshal for murder because of actions he took to protect a Supreme Court justice. The Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution had to be dismissed, because California law could not stop the marshal from doing his job. Pointing to Bonta’s lawsuit, Hajec said California cannot invoke its state powers or property rights to block ICE from doing its job.
“When the federal government comes into a situation anywhere in the United States, federal law is supreme, not that of the state where the activity takes place,” Hajec told The Center Square in an email.
“There is no common-law privilege, silently incorporated into the INA against immigration arrest at courthouses,” Hajec added.
The old privilege, he said, had the far different purpose of stopping litigants from arresting each other (as then could be done) when they came to a courthouse to have their differences decided.
