State courts to track immigration arrests under new Judicial Council policy

California courts must begin tracking civil immigration arrests at their facilities under a new policy passed by the Judicial Council.

"The branch currently lacks consistent statewide data about when civil arrests occurred in court facilities, who was involved, and how frequently these incidents take place," Butte County Superior Court Executive Officer Sharif Elmallah told council members. "Without comprehensive data, it's difficult for the Judicial Council and individual courts to assess trends, evaluate impacts and determine whether further administrative or policy responses."

But Elmallah said his court understands the impact of these raids. Last July, federal agents conducted a daylong operation at the Oroville courthouse, arresting several people. In the months since, he said, many litigants have been afraid to come to court.

The council passed the proposal without changes during its regularly scheduled meeting on Friday. Beginning May 1, courts will need to keep data, including the time and place of an arrest, the agency involved, and whether officers presented identification or a warrant.

Such arrests have been reported in several California counties since the beginning of President Donald Trump's second term, including Contra Costa, Fresno, Los Angeles, Sacramento and San Francisco. The new policy is an attempt to obtain specific numbers to go with the anecdotes and news reports.

Courts will only be required to report information "if known," meaning they are not obligated to investigate or request details from law enforcement. The Western Center on Law and Poverty and other groups had lobbied for a rule requiring courts to collect and verify information and questioned how accurate the data would be otherwise.

"Courts are only expected to report information that they become aware of," Napa County Superior Court Judge Scott R. L. Young told the council. "This recognizes that courts should not be tasked with conducting investigations or confirming law enforcement activity that may have occurred in their facilities without their knowledge."

The effort rekindles a dispute that began nine years ago under the first Trump administration. Then-Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye criticized the practice; the dispute was part of a wider break that saw her leave the Republican Party.

In 2019, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB 668, allowing judicial officers to bar arrests at courthouses. However, immigration authorities appear to routinely ignore that law. The day after Trump took office last year, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security issued new guidance allowing courthouse arrests.

The practice has two major advantages from the perspective of immigration officials. First, officers know exactly when and where they can detain someone. Second, the setting removes two of the most dangerous factors in any arrest -- guns and automobiles -- from the equation.

On Tuesday, the California Senate Judiciary Committee passed a bill intended to strengthen the state's prohibition on courthouse immigration arrests. SB 873 "would prohibit a person from being subject to civil arrest while traveling to, while present at, or while traveling from a courthouse for any lawful activity." The bill would make an exception for arrests with a signed judicial warrant.

Sen. Roger Niello, R-Fair Oaks, said the bill would create "conflict between state and federal law" and put local law enforcement "in a very difficult position." SB 873 passed 11-2, with Niello and Sen. Suzette Martinez Valladares, R-Santa Clarita, voting no.

New York passed a similar law in 2020. In November, U.S. District Court Judge Mae D'Agostino ruled that the Protect Our Courts Act was not preempted by the intergovernmental immunity doctrine. In February, the U.S. Department of Justice appealed the case to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. *United States of America v. State of New York*, 1:25-cv-205-AMN-MJK (N.D.N.Y., filed Feb. 12, 2025).

Another bill was scheduled to be heard at the same hearing. But Sen. Susan Rubio, D-Baldwin Park, removed SB 882 from the agenda. It would have extended current remote hearing provisions set to expire next year to 2029 in what her office said in a news release is an effort to protect people facing arrest and deportation. SB 882 would also have expanded remote appearances to nonparty witnesses.