---

Discussion

Sofia Jadler:

California asks the court to invalidate the operative federal courthouse-enforcement directive and block civil immigration arrests at California courts. Its principal vehicle is the Administrative Procedure Act, or APA. The state says the agencies changed course without adequately explaining why they abandoned earlier safeguards or considering the effect on court attendance. California also invokes the Tenth Amendment, arguing that courthouse enforcement interferes with its responsibility to operate a state judicial system. The claim is not that California can supervise federal officers everywhere; it is that federal policy cannot disregard the state institution where enforcement occurs.

Red Velhouse:

A June ruling involving immigration courts may help California. Why does it not decide this lawsuit?

Sofia Jadler:

In Pablo Sequen v. Albarran, Judge P. Casey Pitts vacated 2025 policies involving arrests at immigration courts, which are executive-branch tribunals. The ruling may support California’s arguments about inadequate explanation and deterrence, but this case concerns independent state courts. The government will emphasize that institutional difference, and the judgment remains subject to appeal. California wants to use the reasoning without treating it as automatic precedent.

Ann Tofado:

That distinction gives both sides a useful political frame. California says federal officials are turning a state-administered institution into an enforcement site without accounting for the consequences. Federal officials see courthouses as predictable places where people subject to immigration enforcement may appear. The courthouse is therefore both an operational location and a symbol of federal authority. California also presented the filing as its hundredth lawsuit against the Trump administration, placing this case inside a broader federal-state confrontation.

Red Velhouse:

Before using the broad phrase “courthouse enforcement,” let’s separate two different things. Can someone be served with a summons at a courthouse for another case?

Sofia Jadler:

Usually, California does not impose a categorical rule that a summons can never be served inside a courthouse. Ordinary service guidance allows delivery at an appropriate location, subject to the statute governing that document. But California common law recognizes a judicial privilege that can protect certain nonresident parties and necessary witnesses from unrelated civil process while attending court, including reasonable travel and preparation time. Gerard v. Superior Court treated service on a nonresident party and witness during trial as invalid. The privilege is fact-specific: it may not apply to an attorney, to the same action, or where immunity would not advance the administration of justice. A subpoena-based statute provides additional protection in a narrower circumstance.

Ann Tofado:

Politically, that distinction cuts through a misleading slogan. Handing someone a summons says, “You have been notified or commanded to respond.” A civil immigration arrest says, “You are being taken into custody.” Both can be intimidating, but an arrest can remove a person immediately and signal to everyone else that appearing at court carries a risk of detention. That is why supporters describe the policy as protecting victims, witnesses, defendants, litigants, families, and court access—not simply as shielding one immigration category.

Kate Burvish:

The operational difference is equally important. Service creates a notice-and-response obligation. Arrest or detention can require security intervention, transportation, rescheduling, replacement witnesses, and additional public-defense or prosecutorial work. The strongest evidence for California would show missed appearances, abandoned proceedings, or reduced willingness to come to court, rather than merely that papers changed hands. Courts depend on hearings, witnesses, interpreters, lawyers, victims’ services, and staff, but there is no independently verified statewide dollar figure for the disruption.

Red Velhouse:

So a lawful summons does not end California’s case. It narrows the question to what the arrest policy does and whether the agencies explained it adequately?

Sofia Jadler:

Exactly. If California argued that no federal legal process of any kind may occur at a courthouse, lawful service could give the government a powerful response. But California is making a narrower argument against civil immigration arrests and detention. For the APA, the questions are whether the agencies acted arbitrarily, exceeded statutory authority, or failed to explain a policy change and its effects. The stronger Tenth Amendment theory is interference with California’s ability to operate a functioning court system—not a claim that the state can immunize everyone from federal process.

Red Velhouse:

New York is the closest modern precedent. What does it give California, and where does Massachusetts caution against reading it too broadly?

Sofia Jadler:

In New York v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a federal district court held in 2019 that the common-law privilege against civil arrest applied to ICE arrests at New York State courthouses, courthouse grounds, and necessary travel to and from court. The court found that Congress had not clearly displaced the privilege through the Immigration and Nationality Act. That supports California’s access-to-courts theory, but it is persuasive rather than binding here. The government can argue preemption or that California’s remedy improperly regulates federal officers. Massachusetts supplies a different caution: Lunn involved state officers declining to hold someone solely on an ICE detainer, while Ryan v. ICE vacated a preliminary injunction because the record was insufficient. Neither case established an unlimited federal right to make courthouse arrests.

Ann Tofado:

That line matters because “sanctuary” compresses several different ideas. Critics can say California is making courthouses sanctuary sites because civil arrests become unusually difficult there. Supporters say the state is protecting a public institution so people can use it without fear. The service issue gives critics a sharper rhetorical point: some legal papers may be served at a courthouse. California’s more credible response is that the dispute is not whether any legal notice can occur there, but whether federal agents may seize people in a place that depends on voluntary participation.

Red Velhouse:

Kate, what do the population numbers show, and what can’t they show?

Kate Burvish:

Pew Research Center estimated about 2.3 million unauthorized immigrants living in California in 2023. The Migration Policy Institute gives a higher estimate of about 2.91 million using different methods. Those are population estimates, not counts of people currently in immigration court. A rough estimate of 1.4 million to 1.8 million potentially subject to removal is an extrapolation from national research, not an official count or forecast of immediate deportations. We also lack a reliable public statewide count of unique Californians in active removal proceedings, people with final orders, or people detained by ICE. Those categories overlap but are not interchangeable, so population size cannot be converted directly into projected arrests, detention demand, or courthouse costs.

Red Velhouse:

California says enforcement continued after the June vacatur under a materially similar successor policy. Does that establish that the government ignored the judgment?

Sofia Jadler:

No. It establishes California’s allegation, not the ultimate fact. California says the operative directive has not been publicly disclosed. Possibilities include a formally adopted replacement, officers acting under other authorities, or disagreement about what the June vacatur covers. The Ninth Circuit appeal may clarify the judgment’s scope. Before a court can enjoin a policy, it must identify what policy is actually operating.

Ann Tofado:

That uncertainty creates an opening for both sides. California can present the arrests it reports as evidence that ordinary litigation is insufficient and that federal officials are testing judicial control. The administration can present the lawsuit as another attempt to obstruct national immigration enforcement. California reported 34 civil-enforcement incidents and 30 arrests in June, and its reporting and pleadings describe additional activity later in the summer and early fall. But those figures come from state reporting and pleadings, not an independent statewide audit. The coalition question is whether prosecutors, court administrators, victims’ advocates, and local officials emphasize operational harm. That could move the case beyond partisan resistance and toward judicial independence and public safety.

Kate Burvish:

California’s reporting system is useful for measuring activity at state court facilities, not for estimating the immigration-court population. Systematic collection began June 1, 2026, but it may miss activity outside court buildings, unsuccessful attempts, and arrests away from court. The most valuable information would distinguish people in active proceedings, people with final orders, people in detention, and people with relief or temporary protection. Until then, neither population estimates nor arrest reports can be converted confidently into statewide enforcement costs.

Red Velhouse:

What changes when California’s expanded courthouse protections take effect on January 1, 2027?

Sofia Jadler:

Existing California law bars civil arrest in a courthouse while someone is attending a proceeding or conducting legal business there. Senate Bill 873, or SB 873, expands protection to additional lawful activity and travel connected to a courthouse, along with other requirements near courthouses. But it still concerns civil arrest and related enforcement; it does not turn every summons or subpoena into an arrest or create universal immunity from service. The October lawsuit arises under the law then in force, while the amendment may create a second legal test. Courts will still decide whether California is managing its judicial facilities or impermissibly directing federal officers.

Red Velhouse:

What should viewers watch next?

Sofia Jadler:

Watch for the government’s response, any preliminary-injunction request, Ninth Circuit action in Pablo Sequen, and disclosure of the operative directive. Also watch how the parties describe the conduct. If the record shows physical arrests, detention, removal from hearings, or deterrence of witnesses, California’s courthouse-access theory is stronger than it would be against mere delivery of legal papers. New York supports courthouse protections, while Lunn and Ryan distinguish refusing state assistance from directly restricting federal officers. California’s service cases likewise caution against confusing a summons with a seizure.

Red Velhouse:

The central unresolved issue is whether California can establish its allegation that federal immigration officials continued a legally defective policy after the June ruling, and whether California can protect access to its courts without unlawfully controlling federal enforcement. California generally permits service of a summons at a courthouse unless a specific statute, common-law privilege, court order, or the person’s role makes service improper. But service of papers is not the same as civil arrest or detention. An arrest can seize a participant, disrupt a proceeding, and deter others from appearing. That distinction weakens any overbroad claim that all federal legal process is forbidden at a courthouse, but it does not defeat California’s APA argument that the arrest policy was inadequately explained, or its courthouse-access and Tenth Amendment arguments that physical arrests interfere with state judicial operations. New York gives California meaningful but nonbinding precedent; Lunn and Ryan distinguish refusing state assistance from directly restricting federal officers. Population estimates also should not be mistaken for counts of people in active proceedings, holding final orders, or detained by ICE. Watch the federal response, Ninth Circuit action, clearer arrest data, and implementation of the expanded protections in January. Sources and references for this discussion are available with the episode at Factolio.com.

---

Sources and References

These sources supported the factual material used in this discussion. Factolio’s panel discussion is AI-generated from researched evidence and is written in original language.

1. California Legislature / California Civil Code — California Civil Code section 43.54, civil arrest in courthouse (PRIMARY)
2. California Court of Appeal — Mattison v. Lichlyter (PRIMARY)
3. California Court of Appeal — Gaines v. Superior Court (PRIMARY)
4. California Court of Appeal — Gerard v. Superior Court (PRIMARY)
5. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California — Valencia-Ayala v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, No. 3:20-cv-02060 (PRIMARY)
6. California Civil Code — Current text of Civil Code section 43.54 (PRIMARY)
7. California State Senate — Governor signs SB 873 protecting Californians from ICE arrests at courthouses (PRIMARY)
8. California Judicial Branch — Judicial Council approves mandatory reporting of civil arrests in court facilities (PRIMARY)
9. California Courts — Serving court papers: personal service and locations for service (PRIMARY)
10. California Court of Appeal — Caldwell v. Coppola and California service-of-process rules (PRIMARY)
11. California Courts Newsroom — Governor signs bill to block ICE arrests in California courthouses (NEWS)