In a series of dramatic courtroom developments across the United States, the intersection of immigration enforcement and civil liberties has come under renewed scrutiny. From Chicago to Texas, recent rulings and administrative orders have sought to redefine the boundaries of federal immigration authority—especially within the hallowed halls of America’s courthouses. The result? A tense standoff between judges, federal agencies, and immigrant advocates, all grappling with the question: Where do the rights of the individual end, and the reach of the state begin?
On October 21, 2025, in Chicago, District Judge Jeffrey Cummings issued a sweeping order that sent shockwaves through the legal community. According to reporting from Axios and other outlets, Judge Cummings prohibited Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from arresting migrants in courtrooms unless they possess a valid warrant. The judge’s ruling didn’t stop there—he declared that federal law enforcement officers could themselves be arrested if they violated this directive. ICE, he ordered, must now report how many people are arrested in the Chicago area without a warrant, a move aimed at bringing greater transparency to a process that has, in recent months, drawn mounting criticism.
Judge Cummings’s order is a direct response to the rise in so-called “collateral arrests”—situations where ICE agents, while searching for a specific individual, detain others encountered by chance, often without warrants or probable cause. As Mark Fleming, an attorney with the National Immigrant Justice Center, explained, “What we have seen now to a much larger scale is federal agents indiscriminately stopping and arresting people without warrants and without probable cause required by federal immigration laws.” Fleming emphasized the need for ICE to “justify and document the specific information justifying that warrantless arrest.”
In his written decision, Judge Cummings pulled no punches: “The fair administration of justice requires that courts remain open and accessible, and that litigants and witnesses may appear without fear of civil arrest.” He cited recent incidents where ICE agents had detained immigrants outside county courthouses, heightening anxieties among immigrant communities. The judge also noted particularly egregious cases, stating, “ICE rousted American citizens from their apartments during the middle of the night and detained them—in zip ties no less—for far longer than the ‘brief’ period authorized by the operative regulation.”
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), for its part, has stated it intends to “comply with all lawful orders of the court and is addressing the matter with the court.” Yet, DHS also defended its broader enforcement practices. “We aren’t some medieval kingdom; there are no legal sanctuaries where you can hide and avoid the consequences for breaking the law,” said the agency, led by Secretary Kristi Noem. “Nothing in the Constitution prohibits arresting a lawbreaker where you find them.” The tension between federal enforcement prerogatives and local judicial protections is clearly far from resolved.
Chicago is not alone in this legal tug-of-war. Just a day earlier, on October 20, 2025, Chief Judge Timothy Evans of the Cook County Circuit Court issued an administrative order designed to keep federal law enforcement—namely ICE and Border Patrol—out of county courts following several high-profile incidents of immigrants being detained on courthouse grounds. As Axios reported, the order was prompted by growing fears among residents that simply attending court, even for essential matters like domestic violence or family hearings, could lead to detention or deportation. Public defenders and immigrant advocates have argued that these fears have already discouraged many from seeking justice or protection.
The order from Chief Judge Evans argues that ICE’s courthouse arrests violate the “well-established common law privilege against civil arrests in and around courthouses.” This legal tradition, dating back centuries, holds that courts should be sanctuaries where individuals can seek justice without fear of civil detention. The administrative order also followed a July 2025 incident at a Maywood courthouse, where an immigrant was arrested and a video circulated showing bystanders demanding to see officers’ warrants and badges. This incident, among others, led county commissioners—including 8th District Commissioner Jessica Vásquez—to push for clearer guidelines protecting courthouse attendees.
To enforce the new rules, the Cook County Sheriff’s Office will post signs in courthouses with the order’s language and notify any individual conducting immigration enforcement of the restrictions. Deputies are instructed to observe, document, and report any immigration enforcement activities to the presiding judge and await further direction. “A legal strategy is something that we should all be looking into, because one of the things I keep telling folks is we cannot get stuck in this political moment, we cannot give way to hopelessness. We have to use every tool possible,” Vásquez told Axios. She added, “I think ultimately what we’re working towards is long-term safekeeping of our systems and of our safe spaces.”
While some jurisdictions move to shield immigrants from what they see as overreach, others face the stark reality of ongoing detentions—sometimes in defiance of court orders. The case of Leqaa Kordia, a 32-year-old Paterson, New Jersey resident, has become a lightning rod for critics of current immigration enforcement. As reported by NorthJersey.com, Kordia has been held for over seven months at the Prairieland Detention Facility in Alvarado, Texas, despite a judge twice ordering her release and no criminal charges being filed against her. Kordia’s attorneys argue that she is being targeted as part of a broader crackdown on pro-Palestinian speech.
Kordia’s ordeal began after she participated in a protest outside Columbia University on April 30, 2024, where she was among 119 demonstrators arrested. Charges were dropped the next day, but the brief arrest brought her to the attention of Homeland Security. Federal officials cited a student visa overstay as grounds for her detention, though Kordia and her attorneys maintain she believed she was in compliance due to her mother’s pending permanent residency petition. Despite her family paying a $20,000 bond, DHS invoked automatic stays to keep her detained. Her legal team filed an emergency motion in August for a temporary restraining order to secure her release, pointing to a recent federal court ruling that found the Trump administration had violated the First Amendment by detaining pro-Palestinian students and faculty.
“Leqaa has been unlawfully confined—ripped from her family, her community, and her life in New Jersey,” said Amal Thabateh, a staff attorney with the CLEAR Project at CUNY School of Law. Kordia herself wrote in court testimony, “I hope to be released from custody so that I can reunite with my family in New Jersey. Against my will, I was separated from my mother for nearly 20 years. Being separated from her again is unbearable.” Her cousin, Hamzah Abushaban, expressed his frustration: “There’s a lot of anger every time I think about it. It makes me feel guilty for living my life free. She’s my cousin. It’s different if she actually committed a crime. But she is the furthest thing from a criminal.”
As the nation watches, Kordia’s fate now rests on an October 23 immigration court hearing, where her legal team hopes to end what they call “unconstitutional and retaliatory detention.” Her story, and those of countless others caught in the crosshairs of immigration policy, continue to test the balance between security, justice, and the enduring promise of due process in American courts.
