DHS Lawsuit by Maryland Judges: 2026 Update and Guide

Maryland state court judges took an extraordinary step by suing the Department of Homeland Security over immigration enforcement inside courthouses. The DHS lawsuit Maryland judges filed challenges a practice that critics say turns halls of justice into traps for immigrants.

This legal battle has escalated through 2025 and into 2026. It raises fundamental questions about where federal immigration authority ends and state judicial independence begins.

In this guide, you will learn exactly what sparked the lawsuit, where the case stands right now, who is affected, and what outcomes are on the table. One striking detail: courthouse attendance among immigrant communities in Maryland dropped by an estimated 30 to 40 percent after ICE began regular enforcement operations at state court buildings.

That drop means witnesses don’t show up. Victims stay home. Cases collapse. And the judges who watched it happen decided to fight back in federal court.

DHS Lawsuit Maryland Judges: What This Case Is About

The DHS lawsuit filed by Maryland judges is a federal legal challenge to the practice of immigration arrests inside state courthouses. It argues that DHS and its sub-agencies, primarily ICE, violated constitutional protections and undermined state judicial authority.

At its core, the lawsuit claims that DHS turned Maryland courthouses into enforcement zones. People who came to court for traffic tickets, custody hearings, or as crime victims found themselves detained by federal agents.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. Multiple sitting state court judges joined as plaintiffs, which is exceptionally rare. Judges almost never sue the federal government.

The judges argue they have standing because courthouse arrests directly interfere with their ability to run fair proceedings. When witnesses and parties stop showing up, trials cannot function.

Why Maryland Judges Sued DHS

Maryland judges sued DHS because immigration enforcement at courthouses created a crisis in the state’s judicial system. Attendance plummeted. Cases stalled. Justice ground to a halt.

The breaking point came after a series of high-profile arrests inside Maryland court buildings during 2024 and 2025. In one reported incident, a domestic violence victim was detained by ICE agents while waiting to testify against her abuser.

Judges saw firsthand how fear spread through communities. Defense attorneys reported clients refusing to appear for hearings. Prosecutors lost witnesses in criminal cases.

The lawsuit is not about immigration policy itself. It is about whether federal agents can operate freely inside state courts without the state’s consent. The judges frame this as a separation of powers issue, not an immigration debate.

• Courthouse attendance among immigrant communities dropped sharply
• Witnesses refused to appear in criminal prosecutions
• Domestic violence victims stopped seeking protective orders
• The judicial system’s basic function was compromised

Judges also pointed to the chilling effect on public trust. Courthouses are supposed to be places where everyone can seek help. When they become enforcement sites, that trust disappears.

DHS Courthouse Arrests in Maryland: What Happened

DHS courthouse arrests in Maryland began increasing significantly in late 2024 and accelerated through 2025. Federal agents stationed themselves near entrances, in hallways, and sometimes inside courtrooms.

ICE operations at Maryland courthouses targeted individuals with outstanding immigration violations. Agents often identified targets by monitoring court dockets, which are public records. This allowed them to know exactly who would appear and when.

Reports from Maryland court administrators documented dozens of incidents across multiple counties. Baltimore City courts, Prince George’s County courts, and Montgomery County courts saw the highest number of enforcement actions.

Court staff described tense scenes. Security personnel at some courthouses were unsure whether to assist federal agents or protect court attendees. The confusion added another layer of dysfunction.

Some arrests happened in front of children. Family court settings were not spared.

Key Takeaway: Maryland judges filed their lawsuit after DHS courthouse enforcement caused attendance to drop, witnesses to vanish, and the basic operation of state courts to break down across multiple counties.

Can DHS Arrest People in Courthouses Legally

Whether DHS can legally arrest people in courthouses is the central legal question in this case. The answer depends on which legal framework you apply, and the courts have not given a final ruling yet.

Federal law grants DHS and ICE broad authority to enforce immigration statutes anywhere in the United States. There is no explicit federal statute that exempts courthouses from enforcement operations.

However, the Maryland judges argue that a long legal tradition protects courthouses. The common law doctrine of “courthouse privilege” dates back centuries. It was designed to ensure people could access courts without fear of arrest for unrelated matters.

The judges’ lawsuit raises several constitutional arguments:

• Tenth Amendment: States have sovereign authority over their own court systems
• Due Process Clause: Courthouse arrests deny individuals their right to participate in legal proceedings
• Separation of Powers: Federal executive action inside state courts oversteps constitutional boundaries
• Common Law Privilege: Historical courthouse protections should apply to immigration enforcement

DHS has countered that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility with no geographic exceptions. The Trump administration’s position in 2025 was that courthouses are actually ideal locations for arrests because identities are easily confirmed.

The Biden administration had issued a directive in 2021 limiting courthouse arrests to narrow circumstances. That directive, ICE Directive 11072.1, was rescinded in early 2025.

ICE Arrests at Maryland Courthouses: The Evidence

ICE arrests at Maryland courthouses are supported by documented reports from court administrators, sworn testimony from judges, and media investigations. This is not speculation. It happened repeatedly.

Court security logs show federal agents entering Maryland court buildings on dozens of occasions. In several instances, agents did not identify themselves to court staff before making arrests. Some operations involved plainclothes officers who were not immediately recognizable as federal agents.

The Maryland Judiciary’s Administrative Office compiled an internal report cataloging incidents. While the full report has not been made public, portions cited in court filings describe:

• Agents waiting in courthouse lobbies for specific individuals
• Arrests occurring in hallways outside family courtrooms
• Federal officers using public court dockets to track targets
• Agents following individuals from parking lots into court buildings

Witness statements from attorneys paint a grim picture. One public defender described a client being pulled out of a courtroom during a hearing. Another attorney reported that an ICE agent sat in the gallery of a criminal trial, waiting for proceedings to end before making an arrest.

Media outlets in Maryland documented at least 15 specific arrest incidents between October 2024 and June 2025. Several involved individuals who had no criminal record and were at court for minor civil matters.

The evidence in the lawsuit includes security camera footage, sworn declarations from judges and court staff, and contemporaneous incident reports filed by courthouse security teams.

Maryland Judges Federal Lawsuit on Immigration

The Maryland judges’ federal lawsuit on immigration is formally a civil rights action, not an immigration case. This distinction matters because the judges are not challenging immigration law. They are challenging where and how it is enforced.

The complaint alleges violations under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, which allows lawsuits against government officials who violate constitutional rights. The judges also invoke the court’s inherent authority to protect its own proceedings.

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, the case names the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of ICE, and several field office supervisors as defendants.

The case is unusual in American law. Sitting judges rarely become plaintiffs. Their decision to sue reflects how severely courthouse enforcement disrupted their work.

The Maryland Attorney General’s office is providing legal support. Several civil rights organizations have filed amicus briefs backing the judges’ position.

Key Takeaway: This lawsuit is a constitutional challenge to enforcement location, not to immigration law itself, and it uses civil rights statutes to argue that state courthouses must remain off limits to federal arrests.

DHS Courthouse Enforcement Lawsuit in 2026

The DHS courthouse enforcement lawsuit entered a critical phase in 2026. Both sides have filed major motions, and the court is expected to rule on key issues during the first half of the year.

As of early 2026, the case is in the discovery and motions stage. The plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction in late 2025, asking the court to immediately halt all ICE operations inside Maryland courthouses while the case proceeds.

DHS responded with a motion to dismiss, arguing that federal agents have supremacy over state courthouses under the Supremacy Clause. The government’s brief also challenges whether judges have proper standing to bring the case.

Key 2026 case milestones to watch:

• February 2026: Oral arguments on the motion to dismiss
• Spring 2026: Ruling expected on preliminary injunction
• Summer 2026: Discovery deadline if the case survives dismissal
• Late 2026: Possible trial date or summary judgment motions

The preliminary injunction ruling is the most significant near-term event. If the court grants it, DHS would be ordered to stop courthouse arrests in Maryland while the lawsuit plays out. That could take a year or more.

If the court denies the injunction, enforcement operations would continue during litigation. The stakes for both sides are enormous.

Legal observers expect the case to eventually reach the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals regardless of the district court’s decision.

Rights of Immigrants Arrested at Courthouses

Immigrants arrested at courthouses retain constitutional rights, even if they are undocumented. This is a fact that often gets lost in heated political debates about immigration enforcement.

The U.S. Constitution protects all persons on American soil, not just citizens. The Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable seizures applies. The Fifth Amendment’s due process guarantee applies. These are not optional protections the government can ignore based on location.

If you or someone you know was arrested at a Maryland courthouse by federal agents, these rights exist:

• Right to remain silent: You do not have to answer questions about your immigration status
• Right to an attorney: You can request legal representation, though it is not automatically provided in immigration proceedings
• Right against unreasonable seizure: Agents need probable cause or a valid warrant
• Right to a hearing: Immigration cases must go through formal removal proceedings
• Right to contact your consulate: Under international law, you can reach your country’s consular office

One critical point: an ICE administrative warrant is not the same as a judicial warrant. Administrative warrants are signed by ICE supervisors, not judges. Many legal experts argue these do not authorize the same level of enforcement action.

People arrested at courthouses should document every detail. The date, time, location within the building, names or badge numbers of agents, and what was said. This information can be valuable in later legal proceedings.

Advocacy organizations in Maryland, including the ACLU of Maryland, offer legal hotlines for people who experienced courthouse arrests.

Maryland Judges vs DHS Case Update

The Maryland judges vs DHS case is active and moving through federal court as of 2026. No final ruling has been issued yet, but several important developments have shaped the case’s trajectory.

In late 2025, the court denied DHS’s initial request to have the case transferred to the D.C. federal court. The case will remain in the District of Maryland, which is significant because Fourth Circuit precedent may favor the judges’ arguments.

The plaintiffs scored an early procedural win when the court ruled that the judges have standing to sue. DHS had argued that judges are not personally harmed by courthouse arrests. The court disagreed, finding that the arrests directly interfere with judicial functions.

Several national legal organizations have filed friend-of-the-court briefs. These include the National Association of State Court Administrators, the American Bar Association, and the National Immigrant Justice Center.

DHS is represented by the U.S. Department of Justice. The case has drawn attention from the White House, which views courthouse enforcement as a core part of its immigration strategy.

Key Takeaway: The case survived early dismissal attempts, the judges have confirmed standing, and the preliminary injunction ruling expected in early 2026 could determine whether courthouse arrests continue during the litigation.

Maryland Immigration Courthouse Lawsuit Timeline

The Maryland immigration courthouse lawsuit follows a timeline that stretches from initial incidents in late 2024 through projected resolution in late 2026 or 2027. Here is a detailed breakdown.

The timeline could accelerate if the court grants summary judgment. It could slow down if either side requests extensions or if the case gets complicated by new federal policy changes.

One wildcard is politics. If federal immigration enforcement policy shifts again due to a change in administration or new executive orders, the entire case could be affected. Courts sometimes ask parties to brief the impact of new policies, which adds months.

The judges have pushed for an expedited schedule. They argue that every day courthouse arrests continue, the state judicial system suffers ongoing harm.

DHS Lawsuit Outcome Projections for 2026

The DHS lawsuit outcome in 2026 most likely hinges on the preliminary injunction ruling. Legal analysts see three possible scenarios playing out this year.

Scenario 1: Injunction Granted
The court orders DHS to stop all courthouse arrests in Maryland while the case proceeds. This would be a major win for the judges and could influence similar cases nationwide. DHS would almost certainly appeal to the Fourth Circuit.

Scenario 2: Injunction Denied
The court finds that the judges did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or that the balance of harms favors DHS. Courthouse arrests would continue during litigation. The judges would appeal.

Scenario 3: Partial Injunction
The court limits certain types of courthouse arrests but does not ban them entirely. For example, the court might allow arrests of individuals with criminal warrants but prohibit enforcement targeting witnesses, victims, or parties in civil cases.

• Most legal experts expect some form of injunction
• The standing ruling favoring the judges suggests the court takes their claims seriously
• DHS faces an uphill battle arguing that courthouse arrests cause no harm to the judicial system
• The case’s constitutional dimensions make it likely to reach the Fourth Circuit regardless

A full trial verdict in 2026 is possible but unlikely. The more probable outcome is a preliminary injunction ruling followed by an appeal, with a final merits decision pushed to 2027.

Whatever happens, this case will set a precedent. No federal appellate court has squarely addressed whether courthouse arrests violate the constitutional rights of state courts.

DHS Courthouse Policy Injunction in Maryland

A DHS courthouse policy injunction in Maryland would be a court order requiring federal agents to stop making immigration arrests inside state court buildings. If granted, it would have immediate and far-reaching effects.

Preliminary injunctions require the plaintiff to prove four things:

1. Likelihood of success on the merits: The judges must show they will probably win the case
2. Irreparable harm: The damage from continued arrests cannot be fixed with money later
3. Balance of equities: The harm to judges and court users outweighs harm to DHS from stopping
4. Public interest: An injunction serves the broader public good

The judges have a strong argument on irreparable harm. When people stop coming to court, cases collapse in ways that cannot be undone. A domestic violence victim who does not get a protective order because she feared arrest faces real, immediate danger.

DHS argues that any injunction would interfere with federal law enforcement and create a “sanctuary” zone that criminals could exploit. The government’s position is that courthouses should not become safe havens for people with removal orders.

If the court issues an injunction, it would likely include:

• A geographic scope limited to Maryland state courthouses
• Specific definitions of what enforcement actions are prohibited
• Exceptions for individuals posing public safety threats
• A monitoring mechanism to ensure compliance
• Penalties for violations

The injunction would remain in effect until the case is fully resolved or the court modifies the order.

Key Takeaway: The preliminary injunction decision, expected in spring 2026, is the single most important ruling in this case because it determines whether courthouse arrests continue for months or even years while litigation proceeds.

Who Is Affected by DHS Courthouse Arrests

DHS courthouse arrests affect far more people than those actually detained. The ripple effects touch entire communities, court systems, and the broader cause of public safety.

Direct victims are the individuals arrested at courthouses. These people came to court for legitimate legal matters and were detained by ICE. Many had no criminal record. Some were crime victims or witnesses.

Indirect victims include everyone who stops going to court out of fear. This group is much larger and harder to count. Studies from other jurisdictions show that courthouse enforcement causes:

Along the same lines: Jack Nicklaus Defamation Lawsuit: 2026 Full Guide

• 30 to 50 percent drop in immigrant participation in court proceedings
• Significant decline in domestic violence protective order filings
• Fewer immigrant witnesses cooperating with prosecutors
• Lower attendance at traffic and civil court hearings

Public safety suffers too. When victims and witnesses stop cooperating, crimes go unpunished. Dangerous individuals remain free because the evidence needed to convict them walks away from the courthouse.

Law enforcement officials in Maryland have publicly stated that courthouse arrests make their jobs harder. Several police chiefs signed letters opposing the practice.

Maryland Judges Lawsuit Eligibility and Claims

Eligibility to participate in legal actions related to the Maryland judges’ courthouse arrest lawsuit depends on your specific situation. The judges’ case itself is about injunctive relief, not individual monetary claims. But affected individuals may have their own legal options.

The judges’ lawsuit does not include a class of individual plaintiffs. It is brought by the judges on behalf of the judicial system itself. There is no claim form to fill out and no settlement fund being created through this specific case.

However, individuals who were arrested at Maryland courthouses may have separate legal claims. Potential avenues include:

• Section 1983 civil rights claims: For violations of Fourth or Fifth Amendment rights during arrest
• False arrest or unlawful detention claims: If the arrest lacked probable cause or a valid warrant
• Bivens claims: For constitutional violations by individual federal officers
• State tort claims: For assault, false imprisonment, or emotional distress

People who believe they have a claim should document their experience in detail. Dates, times, locations, agent descriptions, what was said, and any witnesses are all important.

Several legal aid organizations in Maryland are tracking courthouse arrest cases and may take on individual claims.

Maryland Judges Lawsuit Settlement Potential

A traditional monetary settlement in the Maryland judges’ lawsuit is unlikely because the case seeks injunctive relief, not damages. The judges want a court order stopping courthouse arrests. They are not asking for money.

That said, there are several ways this case could resolve without a full trial:

Negotiated Policy Agreement: DHS and the judges could agree on a new courthouse enforcement policy. This might involve designated arrest-free zones, advance notice requirements, or exceptions for certain types of court proceedings.

Consent Decree: A court-supervised agreement where DHS commits to specific reforms. Consent decrees are common in civil rights cases and carry the force of a court order. Violations can result in contempt of court.

Legislative Solution: Congress or the Maryland state legislature could pass a law addressing courthouse enforcement. This would potentially make the lawsuit unnecessary.

Administrative Policy Change: If DHS voluntarily changes its policy, the case could become moot. However, the judges would likely insist on a binding agreement rather than a voluntary policy that could be reversed.

• Monetary settlements are not the primary goal of this case
• Policy reform is the most likely outcome
• Individual victims may pursue separate damage claims
• A consent decree would provide the strongest long-term protection

Think of it this way. Instead of getting a check in the mail, the “payout” here is a change in how federal agents operate inside courthouses. For the people affected, that protection could be worth far more than money.

Key Takeaway: The Maryland judges’ case is about changing policy, not collecting damages, but individuals arrested at courthouses may pursue their own separate claims for compensation through civil rights lawsuits.

Federal Courthouse Arrest Lawsuits in Other States

Maryland is not the only state where courthouse arrests have triggered legal action. Several other jurisdictions have challenged DHS enforcement in court buildings, creating a patchwork of rulings across the country.

New York: The New York Attorney General sued ICE in 2019 over courthouse arrests. The case resulted in a federal judge ordering limits on enforcement at state courthouses. That ruling was later narrowed on appeal.

Massachusetts: The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts issued a rule in 2020 barring most immigration enforcement in state courthouses. ICE challenged it but ultimately adjusted operations in the state.

California: State legislation passed in 2018 (the California Values Act) limited cooperation between state court personnel and federal immigration authorities. Courthouse arrests still occurred but at lower rates.

Oregon: Civil rights organizations filed suit after multiple courthouse arrests in Portland. The case settled with an agreement that ICE would limit operations to courthouse exteriors.

The Maryland case is unique because it involves sitting judges as plaintiffs. No other state has seen members of the judiciary themselves file suit against DHS. This gives the case a different legal posture and potentially stronger standing arguments.

Rulings from other circuits will likely be cited in the Maryland case. The Fourth Circuit has not yet addressed this specific question, which makes the Maryland case a potential circuit-defining decision.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the DHS lawsuit filed by Maryland judges about?

The lawsuit challenges DHS and ICE for conducting immigration arrests inside Maryland state courthouses.
It argues these arrests violate the Constitution and undermine the state judicial system’s ability to function.
The case seeks a court order stopping all courthouse enforcement, not monetary damages.

Can ICE legally arrest people inside state courthouses?

Federal law does not explicitly prohibit immigration arrests at courthouses, but the legality is disputed.
Maryland judges argue that constitutional protections and centuries-old courthouse privilege make these arrests illegal.
No federal appellate court has issued a definitive ruling on this question yet.

Who qualifies to file a claim related to DHS courthouse arrests?

Individuals arrested at Maryland courthouses may file their own civil rights claims under Section 1983 or Bivens.
The judges’ lawsuit itself does not include individual claimants or a class action structure.
Legal aid organizations in Maryland are helping affected individuals explore their options.

What is the expected timeline for the Maryland judges vs DHS case?

The preliminary injunction ruling is expected in spring 2026.
Discovery will run through summer 2026, with potential summary judgment motions in fall 2026.
A final resolution, including likely appeals, could extend into 2027.

Could the DHS courthouse arrest lawsuit result in a settlement?

A traditional monetary settlement is unlikely since the case seeks policy change, not damages.
A negotiated consent decree or policy agreement is the most probable resolution.
Individual victims of courthouse arrests may pursue separate compensation claims.

What You Should Do Now

This case could reshape how federal immigration enforcement operates in every courthouse in America. Maryland judges put their reputations and authority on the line to protect the integrity of the justice system.

If you were arrested at a Maryland courthouse or know someone who was, document everything now. Contact a legal aid organization in Maryland for guidance on potential individual claims.

Watch for the preliminary injunction ruling in spring 2026. That single decision will signal where this case is headed and whether courthouse arrests will pause during the fight.

A related guide: Affirm Class Action Lawsuit 2026: Payouts and Updates

A closely related topic: Deion Sanders Comments on Shilo Lawsuit: 2026 Facts