Judge Rules Against U.S. Marshals’ Authority in Civil Immigration Cases

A U.S. District Judge has determined that U.S. Marshals in Washington, D.C. lack both the legal authority and necessary training to detain individuals for civil immigration violations. This decision challenges the Trump administration’s approach to immigration enforcement.

The case originated from an incident involving a man referred to as N.S. He was held by U.S. Marshals in January 2020 after a judge in D.C. ordered his release following a court appearance. Instead of freeing him, Marshals detained him based on an ICE detainer until immigration officers took him into custody. This led to a class action lawsuit challenging the practices of the Marshals Service.

In 2021, a federal court banned the practice of Marshals detaining individuals for suspected civil immigration violations. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit later vacated this injunction after a Supreme Court decision changed the rules regarding classwide injunctions. Despite this, the appeals court agreed Marshals lacked the needed authority because they did not have specific immigration training.

The Trump administration had utilized federal agencies like the FBI, DEA, and U.S. Marshals to support ICE in extensive immigration arrests. Data indicated ICE averaged approximately 1,474 arrests daily in early July, with the detention rate reaching 65,765, nearing a previous high of 70,766.

Judge Rejects DHS Authorization

On reevaluation, the government suggested the case was moot, claiming Marshals had undergone training related to immigration. They also referenced a January 2025 directive by then-acting Homeland Security Secretary Benjamin C. Huffman that purportedly gave Marshals additional enforcement capabilities. However, Judge Royce Lamberth ruled this order did not legally extend such powers to U.S. Marshals.

The order did not successfully amend the regulation and cannot constitute a legitimate delegation of authority to the U.S. Marshals to make civil immigration arrests.

This decision highlighted issues with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) trying to alter regulations without following the necessary public rulemaking process. The judge criticized the government for failing to prove Marshals’ training met federal immigration law standards. The virtual training from ICE attorneys was inadequate compared to official law enforcement courses.

Consequently, the court issued a declaratory judgment asserting Marshals in D.C. do not have the authority or requisite training to conduct civil immigration detentions. This ruling underscores growing concerns over federal agent training and use of force in immigration cases. The judgment comes amid criticism following numerous deadly enforcement incidents, such as shootings in Minnesota and Texas earlier this year.