Judge Questions Compliance of ICE with Warrantless Arrest Ban in Colorado
A federal judge in Colorado raised concerns about whether the Trump administration is adhering to a ban on warrantless ICE arrests in the state. This was highlighted during a recent hearing, according to Colorado Public Radio.
Senior U.S. District Judge R. Brooke Jackson, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, noted that the Justice Department seems to be falling short of a November injunction that mandates risk assessments and warrants before detaining individuals. “These things shouldn’t be that difficult,” Jackson remarked during the session.
He further commented on the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) policy, stating, “This is good policy, and all they have to do is follow their own policy and we’re fine with that. But for some reason, they insist they disagree with it… and here we are sitting here today.” It’s a bit perplexing, really.
Jackson issued the injunction on November 25, 2025, in response to a class action lawsuit brought by the ACLU of Colorado along with various affiliated legal groups. The lawsuit claims that ICE agents arrested individuals without proper judicial warrants and without assessing if they were unlawfully present or if they posed a flight risk.
The case initially focused on four plaintiffs, one of whom is Caroline Diaz Goncalves, a University of Utah student who was brought to the U.S. from Brazil as a child. She was reportedly taken into custody after a traffic stop and held for over two weeks before being released.
According to the ruling, ICE officers are prohibited from making arrests without a warrant unless they have probable cause and believe the individual is likely to flee before a warrant can be obtained. Judge Jackson emphasized that while ICE holds the authority to enforce immigration laws, “the law must be followed” while doing so.
During the recent hearing, ACLU attorneys pointed out that arrest records submitted indicate ongoing violations of the injunction. Tim McDonald, legal director for the ACLU of Colorado, stated, “They’re actually detaining and arresting people before they even report to headquarters. They’re arresting people without a warrant.” He also noted that the records reviewed didn’t show any flight risk assessments or judicial warrants.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Brad Lennis admitted that some of the arrest warrants did not completely fulfill the requirements set out in the court’s order. “If you look at these I-213s, they do not list the description of the arrest that is required by the court order,” he acknowledged.
However, Lennis informed the judge that the government had begun to implement new procedures since December, suggesting that compliance was improving. “There were a lot of things to put in place because we were starting from scratch,” he explained, adding that current compliance rates appear better than those recorded in December.
