Federal Judge Blocks ICE Arrests in Colorado, Citing Lack of Flight Risk

A federal judge in Colorado has issued a sweeping order that could fundamentally reshape how immigration agents operate in the state.

In a direct challenge to the Trump administration’s enforcement tactics, U.S. District Senior Judge R. Brooke Jackson ruled on Tuesday that ICE agents cannot arrest undocumented immigrants without a warrant unless they have probable cause to believe the person is likely to flee.

This decision strikes at the heart of a common and controversial tool used by federal agents: the warrantless arrest. It is a ruling that reasserts the power of the Fourth Amendment and sets up a new legal showdown over the balance between national security and individual liberty.

At a Glance: The Colorado ICE Ruling

• What’s Happening: A federal judge has blocked ICE from making warrantless arrests in Colorado unless agents can prove the person is a “flight risk.”
• The Lawsuit: Brought by the ACLU of Colorado on behalf of four individuals arrested without warrants, despite having deep community ties.
• The Judge’s Finding: Judge Jackson ruled that ICE has a “pattern” of ignoring federal law, which requires both probable cause of illegal status and a likelihood of escape for a warrantless arrest.
• The Broader Context: This follows a similar legal battle in California, where the Supreme Court recently lifted a restraining order against ICE tactics via the “shadow docket.”
• The Constitutional Issue: A major test of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable seizures and the Due Process rights of individuals to be free from arbitrary arrest.

The ‘Flight Risk’ Requirement

The core of Judge Jackson’s 66-page ruling is a strict interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

Under INA Section 287(a)(2), federal immigration officers have broad powers, but they are not unlimited. The law states that an officer can make a warrantless arrest only if they have “reason to believe” the person is in the country illegally and “is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained.”

Judge Jackson found that ICE agents in Colorado were routinely ignoring the second half of that requirement. He pointed to the plaintiffs—long-term residents with families, jobs, and fixed addresses—arguing that “no reasonable officer” could have concluded they were about to flee.

“Mere presence within the United States in violation of United States immigration law is not, by itself, sufficient to conclude that a person is likely to escape before a warrant for arrest can be obtained.” – U.S. District Senior Judge R. Brooke Jackson

A Pattern of ‘Collateral’ Arrests

The lawsuit accused ICE of using warrantless arrests as a tool to meet enforcement quotas, often targeting individuals based on their appearance or location rather than specific intelligence.

The judge noted that much of the recent increase in detentions came from “collateral” arrests—people picked up simply because they happened to be near a target. By enforcing the “flight risk” rule, the court is effectively demanding that agents do their homework before making an arrest, rather than sweeping up everyone in sight.

The Supreme Court’s Shadow

This ruling does not happen in a vacuum. It comes just months after the Supreme Court intervened in a similar case out of California.

In September, the high court issued an emergency order lifting a lower court’s ban on ICE stopping people based on factors like race or language. That decision, made via the “shadow docket” without a full opinion, was a victory for the administration.

However, the Colorado case is legally distinct. While the California case focused on racial profiling and the Fourth Amendment, the Colorado ruling is grounded in the specific statutory text of the INA. This may make it harder for the administration to quickly overturn on appeal.

The Constitutional Stakes

The administration has slammed the ruling as “activist,” with DHS spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin calling allegations of racial profiling “disgusting” and “reckless.” They argue the ruling hamstrings their ability to remove “criminal illegal aliens.”

But for civil liberties advocates, this is a necessary check on executive power. It reaffirms that even in the enforcement of immigration law, the government must follow the rules written by Congress.

“The federal court basically ordered ICE to do its job, which is to follow federal law.” – Hans Meyer, immigration attorney for the plaintiffs

This case is a reminder that the power to arrest is one of the most potent tools the government possesses. In a constitutional republic, that power is never absolute; it is always bound by the law. The battle in Colorado is about ensuring those bounds are respected, even for those with the least power in our society.