Judge lets immigrants challenge rearrests

SAN JOSE, Calif. (CN) —  A federal judge declined Thursday to toss a case regarding claims against the rearrest and re-detention of immigrants that were already deemed not a flight risk or danger, saying the legal challenges still need to be addressed.

U.S. District Court Judge P. Casey Pitts made a quick denial on the government’s motion to dismiss, noting his decision was based on the same reasoning as his prior orders in this case and a related one: Pablo Sequen v. Albarran et. al, a class action in which the plaintiffs seek to stop Immigration and Customs Enforcement noncitizen courthouse arrests and assert the unconstitutionality of the conditions at the ICE holding facility at 630 Sansome St. in San Francisco.

“When [the Department of Homeland Security] officers began re-detaining noncitizens without individualized determinations of changed circumstances in May, DHS did not provide a public explanation for its change in practice,” the Joe Biden appointee wrote in his stay of agency action order in December 2025.

“Nor has DHS offered any evidence of a contemporaneous internal explanation for the shift. And when initially asked by courts to articulate a rationale for its re-arrest of noncitizens absent changed circumstances, DHS struggled to provide a consistent answer.”

Pitts also denied the government’s request to consolidate the Garro Pinchi v. Noem et al. class action and the Pablo Sequen case, saying that though they both include Administrative Procedure Act claims, they are “different enough” in terms of legal challenges and how far along in proceedings.

Back in December, the plaintiffs’ attorneys successfully argued for class certification along with the motion to stay agency action, claiming the 40 class members were at “substantial risk of re-detention.”

Erin Meyer, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said the government did meet its deadline to produce an administrative record of the case, insinuating it was intentionally causing delay.

“I am not surprised that the government has not produced the administrative record for this case,” she said.

Meyer mentioned that the Pablo Sequen case may be up for a motion for summary judgment soon, but even though the plaintiffs would like to see a speedy resolution to the case, “frankly, we aren’t there yet,” she said.

Department of Justice attorney Nancy Safavi did not appreciate Meyer’s representation, saying the government was acting based on “local practices” and good faith, while signaling the government was likely to appeal Pitts’ decision.

Pitts said the due process challenge provided by the government in the Garro Pinchi case — the Third Circuit court’s recent decision to open the possibility of rearrest of Columbia University activist Mahmoud Khalil — was not considered in his denial of dismissal. He said he would rely on other Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit decisions to guide him for any forthcoming actions in both cases.