The notable mechanism does not lie in whether ICE arrests people, but in how the agency reinterprets a narrow exception to circumvent court orders. Under 2021 guidance that was reinstated in May, ICE is only permitted to arrest people at immigration court in rare cases such as suspected national security threats, imminent risk of death, or hot pursuit. An ICE official named Roberto Rodriguez filed a declaration arguing that the courthouse itself is the safest place to make arrests, since arresting people on the street in sanctuary cities risks triggering protests. This is how ICE transforms an exception into common practice. On another front, federal judge P. Casey Pitts in California issued a 71-page ruling finding that ICE violated the Administrative Procedure Act by secretly removing the 12-hour detention limit and expanding arrest authority at courthouse in 2025 without explanation — a reversal of the restrictive policy that had been in place from 2014 to 2025.
Complying with immigration court appointments, once considered proof of good faith, is now the riskiest moment.
Who is directly affected
This is not an abstract matter for the Vietnamese-origin community. The immigration court system currently has a backlog of more than 3.7 million cases, mostly asylum seekers, those awaiting adjustment of status, and elderly first-generation refugees still required to appear for periodic check-ins. At the single address of 26 Federal Plaza in Manhattan alone, ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) arrested more than 1,000 people over the past year, including children, many of whom had just completed their hearing and been scheduled to return according to their court date. This practice was more prevalent in New York than any other major city under the Trump administration's policy. For Vietnamese-origin individuals holding bond status, waiting for a green card, or pursuing asylum applications, compliance with court schedules — traditionally seen as evidence of good faith — can now become the moment of greatest risk.
Risk does not stop at the courthouse door
An internal memo signed by ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons on May 12, 2025 also permits officers to break into homes based on administrative warrants, rather than warrants signed by a judge as has been customary for decades. According to legal analysts, this contradicts the Payton v. New York precedent from 1980 of the U.S. Supreme Court, which requires a judge-signed warrant before entering a home to make an arrest. For Vietnamese families with members whose immigration proceedings remain incomplete, the distinction between an "administrative warrant" and a "judicial warrant" — which may sound technical — determines whether ICE has the right to knock on a private door.
The highest price: human life
The most serious consequence of expanded enforcement authority occurred in Houston, where ICE officers fatally shot a man during a vehicle stop, prompting the victim's family and immigrant advocacy organizations to demand an independent investigation. The victim was identified as Lorenzo Salgado Araujo; his son spoke at a press conference after learning of his father's death.
What to watch
Readers with relatives in immigration proceedings should note three points: first, lawsuits in New York and California are forcing ICE to account for specific arrests, and upcoming appeal rulings will shape the scope of the "public safety" exception. Second, the memo permitting warrantless home entries is still being challenged in court and has not been uniformly applied nationwide. Third, having a lawyer accompany you to immigration court — though not provided free by the government — remains the most practical measure to reduce the risk of unexpected arrest right in the courthouse hallway.