In its zeal to deport undocumented immigrants, the Trump Administration has had ICE begin arresting Latino immigrants in state courthouses.
On April 22nd a group of men hauled Teodoro Dominguez-Rodriguez, away from the Albemarle County courthouse in Charlottesville, Virginia after a judge had dismissed criminal charges against him. The men, dressed in plain clothes, showed no identification or any warrant for Mr. Dominguez-Rodriguez’s arrest. Federal records show that Mr. Dominguez-Rodriguez, an immigrant from Honduras, was being held at the Farmville Detention Center in Virginia.
On April 25th Hannah Dugan, a Wisconsin County Circuit judge in Milwaukee, was arrested by plainclothes FBI agents and charged in federal court for allegedly helping Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, an undocumented immigrant, avoid arrest. FBI Director Kash Patel claimed that Judge Dugan intentionally misdirected federal agents away from Mr. Flores-Ruiz, who was arrested by FBI agents who Patel said “chased down the perp on foot” outside the courthouse. Mr. Flores-Ruiz had gone to Judge Dugan’s court for a family law matter. Witnesses told investigators that Judge Dugan confronted the federal agents in a public hallway, repeatedly demanding that they leave, saying that they needed a proper warrant to arrest Mr. Flores-Ruiz.
These incidents show that the Trump administration is now resorting to arresting Latino immigrants when they appear for hearings in state courts and has even begun arresting state court judges who hold hearings at which immigrants are litigants or witnesses. These tactics will have the undesirable effect of deterring immigrants from attending hearings in state courts as parties or witnesses, and of deterring judges from who protest federal interference with court proceedings.
Unlike Virginia and Wisconsin, California is a sanctuary state – one of 13 states that protect immigrants from warrantless arrests. In the last several years California has adopted laws to protect immigrants’ access to California courts, to prohibit intimidation of immigrants to deter them from attending court hearings, and to prohibit ICE from arresting immigrants in California courts without an arrest warrant. These laws are embodied in the California Values Act (Senate Bill 54), which was adopted in 2017 and is now found in Government Code §§ 7284 et seq.
Shortly after its adoption, the United States challenged the constitutionality of the California Values Act and two other laws that California had adopted to protect immigrants. On March 6, 2018 the United States filed an action in federal court, seeking a preliminary injunction enjoining the three state laws as being preempted and violating the Supremacy Clause. The district court denied the motion insofar as it sought to enjoin enforcement of SB 54. United States v. California (E.D. Cal. 2018) 314 F.Supp.3d 1077, 1112.
The United States appealed to the Ninth Circuit, arguing that SB 54 unlawfully obstructs the enforcement of federal immigration laws, because it prohibited California law enforcement agencies from “[t]ransfer[ring] an individual to immigration authorities unless authorized by a judicial warrant or judicial probable vause determination.” Gov’t Code § 7284.6(a)(4). However, the Ninth Circuit Court affirmed, writing: “We have no doubt that SB 54 makes the jobs of federal immigration authorities more difficult,” but that “SB 54 does not directly conflict with any obligations that the INA or other federal statutes impose on state or local governments, because federal law does not acutally mandate any state action” and that “California’s decision not to assist federal immigration enforcement in its endeavors is not an ‘obstacle’ to that enforcement effort.” United States v. California (2019) 92 F.3d 865, 888. The Court also held constitutionality of the California Values Act was supported by the Tenth Amendment, under which “the Federal Government may not compel the States to implement, by legislation or executive action, federal regulatory programs.” Printz v. United States (1997) 521 U.S. 898, 925.
The City of Huntington Beach also challenged the constitutionality of the California Values Act, claiming that the Act violated the authority of charter cities under Article XI, Section 5(b) of the California Constitution. A trial court agreed with the City of Huntington Beach granted the City’s petition for a writ of mandate. However, the Court of Appeal reversed, holding the California Values Act legally valid under the California Constitution. City of Huntington Beach v. Becerra (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 243.
The constitutionality of the California Values Act has now been affirmed by both the Ninth Circuit and the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District. It must now be enforced, especially because of the Trump Administration’s increased efforts to seize immigrants in courts and to deport them without due process.
The plaintiffs in the Stone Countertop Fabricator Silicosis Cases are almost all undocumented male Hispanic immigrants who have been diagnosed with accelerated silicosis with Progressive Massive Fibrosis (PMF). Most of the plaintiffs are terminally ill (unless they receive and survive double lung transplantation), or are the survivors of workers who have died of silicosis. Most of the plaintiffs came to the United States in their teens and found work in stone countertop fabrication shops cutting, fabricating and installing artificial stone countertops in homes and offices. As a result, they inhaled high concentrations (billions of particles) of nanosized crystalline silica particles, causing accelerated silicosis, a terminal medical condition whose only effective treatment is lung transplantation. The plaintiffs are vulnerable workers, because they are fearful they will be deported if they seek redress for their injuries in California courts, and most plaintiffs are ineligible for workers’ compensation benefits, because they were hired and paid as independent contractors. Most of the plaintiffs are totally disabled from employment; many are tethered to oxygen tanks as they wait and pray they will receive lung transplants before they die from silicosis. They are especially needy because most have young wives and minor children whom they can no longer support.
The Metzger Law Group has filed more than 150 cases in California superior courts on behalf of Hispanic immigrants who found work in California fabricating artificial stone countertops who suffer from silicosis or have died from this disease which has no known cure and whose only treatment for advanced stage disease is lung transplantation.
Pursuant to Assembly Bill 668 (Chap. 787, filed October 12, 2019), Code of Civil Procedure § 177 was amended to provide that judges “shall have power . . . (e) To prohibit activities that threaten access to state courthouses and court proceedings, and to prohibit interruption of judicial administration, including protecting the privilege from civil arrest at courthouses and court proceedings.” Thus, California superior court judges have both the the power and the legal duty to undertake all measures necessary to protect these horrifically injured immigrants and their families, as well as their employers, hirers, co-workers, and other witnesses in these cases who are undocumented immigrants, from unlawful (warrantless) arrest in our state courthouses. The presiding judge of every courthouse in California should therefore adopt formal policies and instruct all judges and court personnel that if plainclothes ICE agents attempt to arrest immigrants when they enter state courthouses to attend court proceedings, bailiffs are to be summoned and all judges, bailiffs and other court personnel must obstruct ICE agents from attempting to arrest immigrants unless they have a warrant that is actually signed by a judge.
On April 28, 2025 President Trump signed an executive order directing the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to identify jurisdictions where local enforcement has declined to cooperate with the Trump administration’s immigration policies. This is Trump’s latest attempt to force sanctuary states to assist Trump in his efforts to seize immigrants without arrest warrants and deport them without providing them due process of law. This is not the first time that President Trump has targeted sanctuary states.
In 2017 President Trump issued an executive order directed at “sanctuary jurisdictions.” Two California counties sued arguing that the Executive Order was unconstitutional. County of Santa Clara v. Trump (N.D. Cal. 2017) 250 F.Supp.3d 497. Judge William H. Orrick issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the targeting of sanctuary states and later granted summary judgment and issued a permanent injunction in favor of the counties. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that President Trump’s power, in issuing the Executive Order purporting to prevent “sanctuary jurisdictions” from receiving federal grants if they did not facilitate Trump’s immigration enforcement policies, was unconstitutional because under the Constitution Congress holds the power of the purse. City and County of San Francisco v. Trump (2018) 897 F.3d 1225.
Shortly after taking office in 2025, President Trump issued Executive Orders 14,159 (“Protecting the American People Against Invasion”) and 14,218 (“Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders”), the language and purpose of which mirror his 2017 Executive Order which the Ninth Circuit held was unconstitutional. Judge Orrick found these executive orders unconstitutional as violation of the separation of powers and also based on the Tenth Amendment, “because they impose coercive condition intended to commandeer local officials into enforcing federal immigration practices and law.” He therefore issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the Trump administration from implementing and enforcing these executive orders. City and County of San Francisco, et al. v. Trump, (N.D. Cal., April 24, 2025) Case No. 25-cv-01350-WHO.
Four days after Judge Orrick issued his injunction, President Trump signed an Executive Order titled “Strengthening and Unleashing America’s Law Enforcement to Pursue Criminals and Protect Innocent Citizens.” This executive order references the executive orders that President Trump issued earlier this year and seeks to hold state and local officials accountable for “unlawfully prohibiting law enforcement officers from carrying out duties necessary for public safety and law enforcement.” Thus, President Trump’s newest executive order shows that President Trump intends to flout the Ninth Circuit’s decision as well as Judge Orrick’s preliminary injunction and that he intends to direct ICE to arrest immigrants in California courts without judicial warrants and deport them without providing them a hearing in violation of federal and state due process requirements.
It is therefore incumbent upon the presiding judges of the superior courts, all judges, the bailiffs and all court personnel to protect California’s immigrants from intimidating them from attending and participating in court hearings and from unlawful arrest by ICE in our courts.