A federal judge in the United States has dealt a significant blow to the Trump administration's immigration enforcement tactics, issuing a preliminary injunction that restricts warrantless arrests in the nation's capital.
Judge Howell's Landmark Ruling
Late on Tuesday, 3rd December 2025, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell in Washington granted the injunction sought by civil liberties and immigrant rights groups. The groups had filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, alleging widespread unlawful practices.
Judge Howell, who was nominated to the bench by former Democratic President Barack Obama, found the plaintiffs had “established a substantial likelihood of an unlawful policy and practice by defendants of conducting warrantless civil immigration arrests without probable cause.”
The Core of the Legal Challenge
The case centred on the legal standard required for civil immigration arrests. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, officers must generally have an administrative warrant. They may only make an arrest without one if they have probable cause to believe the person is in the U.S. illegally and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained.
Attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other plaintiffs argued that federal officers were systematically ignoring this rule. They presented evidence of officers patrolling and setting up checkpoints in Washington, D.C. neighbourhoods with large Latino immigrant populations, stopping and arresting people indiscriminately.
The plaintiffs provided sworn declarations from individuals allegedly arrested without warrants or a proper assessment of flight risk. They also cited public statements by administration officials which, they contended, showed a disregard for the probable cause standard. Attorneys for the administration denied any official policy permitting such arrests.
Immediate Consequences and Documentation Orders
Judge Howell's ruling goes beyond simply blocking the alleged policy. She mandated specific corrective actions, stating that the defendants' “systemic failure to apply the probable cause standard, including the failure to consider escape risk, directly violates” both immigration law and DHS regulations.
She ordered that any agent conducting a warrantless civil immigration arrest in Washington must now document “the specific, particularised facts” that supported their pre-arrest belief that the person was a flight risk. Furthermore, the government is required to submit this documentation to the plaintiffs' attorneys for scrutiny.
An email sent to the Department of Homeland Security for comment after hours on Tuesday was not immediately returned.
A Pattern of Legal Challenges
This ruling is not an isolated event. It mirrors outcomes in two other federal lawsuits involving the ACLU, one in Colorado and another in California. In a related Los Angeles case, a different judge had previously issued a restraining order barring federal agents from stopping people based solely on race, language, job, or location.
However, that particular order was lifted by the U.S. Supreme Court in September, highlighting the ongoing legal tug-of-war surrounding immigration enforcement tactics under the Trump administration. The Washington, D.C. injunction now stands as a major judicial check on the scope of warrantless arrest powers.
