ICE Warrantless Arrests Challenged in Federal Appeals Court

California, the District of Columbia and Colorado led twenty-one states in an amicus brief filed October 19, 2026 in the D.C. Circuit, supporting the challenge in Escobar-Molina v. DHS to warrantless civil immigration arrests. The district court granted a preliminary injunction in part on December 2, 2025.

 

The provision at issue is 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2), which permits a warrantless arrest only where the officer has reason to believe the person is in the United States unlawfully and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained. The states argue that the second condition has not been applied as a separate determination, so the arrest proceeds on the first alone.

Why States Are Challenging ICE's Warrantless Arrest Practices

California joined a multistate coalition in filing an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The coalition supports a legal challenge to DHS practices involving civil immigration arrests without warrants. The states argue that federal officers have conducted arrests without making the individualized determinations required under immigration law.

When Can ICE Make an Arrest Without a Warrant?

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2), federal immigration officers may make certain warrantless civil arrests when they have reason to believe an individual is in the United States in violation of immigration law and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained. Courts have interpreted the reason-to-believe requirement as a probable cause standard. The litigation concerns whether DHS's arrest practices satisfy these statutory conditions.

Why the Likelihood of Escape Matters

The statutory requirement concerning the likelihood of escape is separate from the determination regarding immigration status. The plaintiffs and supporting states argue that officers must evaluate both conditions before conducting a warrantless civil immigration arrest.

What Happened in Escobar-Molina v. DHS?

The case challenges warrantless civil immigration arrest practices in the District of Columbia. On December 2, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted part of a motion for a preliminary injunction. The case subsequently proceeded to the D.C. Circuit, where the multistate coalition submitted its October 2026 amicus brief. A preliminary injunction is not a final determination of every issue in the litigation.

What the Appeal Could Mean for Immigration Enforcement

The appeal concerns how statutory requirements apply to warrantless civil immigration arrests and the extent to which officers must establish an individualized likelihood of escape. The states also describe effects on schools, workplaces, healthcare access, and local communities. The appellate court's decision will determine the issues before it, and any broader implications will depend on the scope of its ruling.

How SJKP Can Help

SJKP can assist individuals and businesses with immigration-related legal matters, administrative proceedings, and federal litigation. Individuals facing immigration enforcement actions can consult qualified counsel to understand their rights, available legal remedies, and the procedures applicable to their circumstances.