Courthouse Arrests: An Assault on Justice and the Rule of Law

The Facts and Context

In a bold and necessary move, California Supreme Court Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero is leading a charge to protect the integrity of the state’s judicial system from the corrosive effects of immigration enforcement actions within courthouses. As the first Latina to hold this prestigious position, Chief Justice Guerrero brings a critical perspective to an issue that strikes at the very heart of equal access to justice. Her concerns center on the “paralyzing effects” of federal immigration arrests occurring in and around California court facilities, a practice that has created what can only be described as a climate of fear among those who need to access the judicial system.

The historical context reveals a disturbing pattern. During the Biden administration, immigration agencies generally refrained from making arrests in courthouses, recognizing the importance of maintaining these spaces as safe venues for resolving legal matters. This policy acknowledged the fundamental principle that courts must remain accessible to all individuals, regardless of immigration status. However, this respect for judicial sanctity evaporated when the Trump administration assumed power, explicitly permitting immigration agents to conduct arrests within court facilities and their immediate surroundings.

The data, while still informally collected, paints a concerning picture. Chief Justice Guerrero’s office has documented immigration control incidents in 17 different courthouses across California, with Shasta County Superior Court reporting the highest level of activity. This tracking represents more than just bureaucratic record-keeping; it’s a response to a genuine crisis in public trust. The Judicial Council is considering formalizing this data collection process on April 24, which would require courts to regularly submit information about civil arrests occurring in and around superior courts.

Legislative Response and Judicial Action

The response to this crisis extends beyond the judiciary alone. California Democratic senators have introduced complementary legislation to strengthen protections within court facilities. Senator Susan Rubio of West Covina has proposed legislation that would allow remote appearances for most state court hearings, trials, or judicial conferences—both civil and criminal—through January 2029. This pragmatic approach recognizes that technological solutions can provide alternatives when physical presence in courthouses creates unacceptable risks.

Meanwhile, Senator Eloise Gómez Reyes of San Bernardino has introduced legislation specifically aimed at preventing federal immigration agents from conducting what she describes as “surprised and indiscriminate” arrests in courts. These legislative efforts, combined with Chief Justice Guerrero’s judicial leadership, represent a multi-faceted approach to defending the rule of law against enforcement actions that undermine its very foundation.

Chief Justice Guerrero has articulated a strategic approach that focuses on practical solutions rather than political confrontation. “The president isn’t going to listen to me if I try to tell him what to do, so what’s the point?” she remarked, demonstrating a clear-eyed understanding of the political realities. Instead, she emphasizes informing courts, ensuring judicial training on legal authority, and connecting the public with additional help resources. This represents a sophisticated understanding of how state institutions can exercise their constitutional authority within our federal system.

The Fundamental Principles at Stake

What we are witnessing is nothing less than an assault on the foundational principles of American justice. The courthouse has historically served as the physical embodiment of the rule of law—a place where disputes are resolved according to established legal principles rather than raw power. When enforcement actions transform these hallowed spaces into hunting grounds, we compromise the very essence of what makes our judicial system legitimate.

The fear instilled by courthouse arrests creates a ripple effect that damages the entire justice system. Witnesses who fear apprehension may refuse to come forward, allowing criminals to escape accountability. Litigants may abandon legitimate claims or defenses, resulting in unjust outcomes. Domestic violence victims may hesitate to seek protective orders. The entire ecosystem of justice depends on participants feeling secure enough to engage with the process, and this security is being systematically dismantled.

This issue transcends immigration policy debates. Regardless of one’s position on immigration enforcement generally, we must recognize that courthouse arrests represent a particularly dangerous form of overreach. They weaponize the justice system against itself, using the very institutions designed to protect rights as tools for enforcement actions that undermine those same rights. This creates a perverse incentive structure where avoiding the justice system becomes rational behavior for vulnerable populations.

The Constitutional Dimensions

The constitutional implications of courthouse arrests are profound and disturbing. The First Amendment protects the right to petition the government for redress of grievances—a right that necessarily includes access to the judicial branch. When individuals are deterred from accessing courts due to fear of enforcement actions, this fundamental right is effectively nullified. Similarly, the Due Process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee fair legal proceedings, which become impossible when participants operate under threat of apprehension.

The Tenth Amendment’s reservation of powers to the states also comes into play here. State courts are creations of state governments, and states have a legitimate interest in ensuring that their judicial functions can operate without federal interference that compromises their effectiveness. While immigration enforcement is undoubtedly a federal responsibility, the manner and location of that enforcement must respect the constitutional authority of state institutions.

Chief Justice Guerrero’s approach represents a sophisticated understanding of these constitutional tensions. By focusing on data collection, remote hearing options, and judicial education, she’s exercising state authority in a manner that respects federal supremacy while vigorously defending state interests. This is precisely the type of thoughtful federalism that the Constitution’s framers envisioned—not confrontation for its own sake, but principled defense of institutional integrity.

The Human Cost

Behind the legal principles and constitutional arguments lie real human stories of fear and injustice. Imagine the domestic violence victim who must choose between seeking protection from an abuser and risking immigration enforcement. Consider the witness to a crime who remains silent because coming forward might mean family separation. Think about the tenant facing unlawful eviction who declines to challenge their landlord in court. These are the daily calculations being forced upon vulnerable communities, and each represents a small tragedy that collectively amounts to a systemic failure.

The psychological impact of turning courts from places of refuge into sources of threat cannot be overstated. For generations, Americans have been taught to respect and trust judicial institutions. This trust is being eroded not through any failure of the judiciary itself, but through the actions of executive branch agencies that appear indifferent to the collateral damage their enforcement strategies cause. Rebuilding this trust will take years, perhaps generations, and the damage being done today will have consequences long after current political debates have faded.

The Path Forward

The solutions being proposed—data collection, remote hearings, legislative protections—represent practical steps toward mitigating this crisis. However, they must be understood as temporary measures addressing symptoms rather than curing the underlying disease. The fundamental question remains: what kind of society do we want to be? Do we want a justice system that protects everyone equally, or one that creates second-class access based on immigration status?

Chief Justice Guerrero’s leadership on this issue deserves widespread support across the political spectrum. This isn’t about partisan politics or immigration policy specifics—it’s about defending the institutional integrity of our judicial system. Conservatives who value federalism should recognize states’ interests in protecting their courts. Liberals who champion civil rights should see the threat to due process. And all Americans who believe in the rule of law should be alarmed by any practice that makes courts places of fear rather than justice.

As we move forward, we must remember that the strength of our democracy depends on strong institutions that command public trust. When we allow any branch of government to undermine that trust for short-term enforcement goals, we weaken the entire constitutional structure. The courthouse must remain what it has always been: a sanctuary where rights are protected, disputes are resolved fairly, and the rule of law prevails over arbitrary power. Anything less represents a betrayal of our most fundamental values as a nation.