Immigration and Customs Enforcement has quietly rescinded guidance that advised ICE agents conducting courthouse raids to take steps to avoid violating state and local laws while carrying out civil immigration arrests. The subtle policy change could lead to an escalation in enforcement tactics and legal disputes.

Revised policy guidance recently posted to ICE’s website and reviewed by WIRED reveals efforts by the agency to enhance the discretion and autonomy of the federal agents making arrests in and around courthouses—one of the more aggressive initiatives employed by the Trump administration as part of its all-out push to round up migrants across the United States and its territories. The policy revision has not been previously reported.

In recent weeks, ICE agents have made high-profile arrests of immigrants attending routine court hearings, as part of the administration’s effort to conduct what Trump calls the largest deportation campaign in American history.

The change in guidance comes amid sweeping ICE raids across the US, some sparking protests and heated confrontations with citizens, threatening an erosion of local autonomy and democratic governance over law enforcement operations within communities, while further blurring the line between civil and criminal enforcement.

Interim guidance, issued in January by ICE’s former acting director, Caleb Vitello, ordered agents to ensure that courthouse arrests were “not precluded by laws imposed by the jurisdiction in which enforcement actions will take place.” Todd Lyons, the current acting director, issued a superseding memo dated May 27 that removes the language about respecting local laws and statutes that limit ICE agents from performing “enforcement actions” in or near courthouses.

“The old policy required ICE to consult with a legal adviser to determine whether making an arrest at or near a courthouse might violate a nonfederal law. The new policy eliminates that requirement,” says Anthony Enriquez, vice president at RFK Human Rights, a human rights advocacy nonprofit. “Now, these frequently complex legal questions fall to the judgment of a line officer untrained in local laws.”

“It is certainly yet another effort to unleash and expand ICE’s enforcement operations without regard to state law,” says Emma Winger, deputy legal director at the American Immigration Council.

Federal policy guidance is not legally binding, but it carries the power of law in practice, mandating procedures that ICE agents must follow in carrying out enforcement operations.

In response to a request for comment, ICE spokesperson Mike Alvarez referred WIRED to the May 27 memorandum. ICE declined to clarify whether it would continue to consider local courthouse policies and security protocols during enforcement actions.

Vitello, responsible for issuing the original guidance, was appointed ICE acting director by President Donald Trump soon after inauguration. Vitello was removed in late February and reportedly transferred to oversee the agency’s deportation operations. Lyons assumed the acting directorship in March.

The Biden administration previously limited ICE enforcement actions in and around courthouses in 2021, saying the arrests—which reportedly spiked during Trump’s first term—“had a chilling effect on individuals’ willingness to come to court or work cooperatively with law enforcement.”

ICE policies continue to advise agents to “generally avoid” actions around courts focused on civil matters—the vast majority of immigration cases are civil in nature—without the authorization of a high-ranking supervisor. However, under Biden, such actions could only be taken at courts (of any kind) to resolve a national security matter or to prevent threats to public safety or the destruction of evidence material to a criminal case. The Biden-era policy was a response, in turn, to 2018 guidance issued under Trump, which had directed ICE to arrest migrants at local courthouses.

Last month, at a meeting shortly before Lyons once again altered the policy, Trump deputy chief of staff for policy Stephen Miller and Department of Homeland Security director Kristi Noem reportedly told ICE to deport 3,000 people per day, according to Axios, a drastic increase over the first Trump administration’s deportation rates.

Earlier this week, Lyons defended his agents’ use of masks to hide their identities following a confrontation with citizens outside the Buona Forchetta restaurant in San Diego, California. Videos of the event captured by bystanders showed agents deploying flash-bang-type devices in an attempt to disperse the crowd. Passersby protesting the raid outside the South Park neighborhood restaurant can be overheard calling the masked agents “Nazis” and “fascists.”

Winger explains that ICE has long made arrests inside state courthouses without regard for state law. Agents often use court dockets, for instance, to locate migrants scheduled to appear in court, facilitating targeted arrests.

Last month, ICE agents arrested at least a dozen immigrants as they arrived at New York City courthouses for scheduled hearings—including a Bronx high school student. Under New York State law, federal immigration authorities are barred from making civil arrests in and around state courthouses without a judicial warrant. The law does not, however, restrict ICE from making arrests in federal courthouses, where immigration and asylum hearings are typically held. The City of New York on Monday sued Lyons and ICE, as well as DHS and Noem, over the Bronx student’s arrest in an effort to effect his release.

Winger expects the May 27 policy shift will impact states such as Colorado that have similar protections.

Last week, DHS published a list of so-called sanctuary jurisdictions that includes dozens of cities and counties that DHS said were not compliant with federal law. The effort was seemingly part of an initiative to push back against municipalities it believes are obstructing its immigration goals. On Sunday, after protests from local governments, DHS scrubbed the list from its website.

“This policy memorandum change is another attack from the Trump administration against state and local laws that enact across-the-board limits on civil arrests in sensitive locations like schools, churches, hospitals, and courthouses,” adds Enriquez. “In the future, we should expect to see legal challenges to the federal government’s encroachment on state sovereignty. And in the meantime, we should also expect less justice in our local and state courts.”