Focus on the BIG picture.
Monday, Feb 02, 2026
Outside the box.
Trump Administration Appeals Judge’s Ban on Immigration Arrests at Green Card Interviews
U.S. government asks federal appeals court to reverse a lower-court ruling that bars arresting some migrants during adjustment of status interviews
The Trump administration has formally appealed a federal judge’s injunction that prohibits immigration authorities from arresting individuals during green card interviews, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit considers whether to uphold or overturn the ban.
The dispute centres on a 2024 decision from a Maryland federal court that found federal immigration officials cannot detain or remove people with final removal orders at United States Citizenship and Immigration Services appointments when they are applying for a provisional unlawful presence waiver.
Justice Department attorneys argued that the lower court’s order should be reversed because the plaintiffs in the original lawsuit already have final orders of removal and therefore ‘‘lack any right to remain in the United States,’’ stressing that the waiver process does not confer legal status or a stay of removal.
They maintained that enforcement actions taken during USCIS interviews are lawful arrests of non-citizens without current legal status, and urged the three-judge panel to overturn the Maryland injunction.
The case arose from a class-action lawsuit filed in 2020 challenging the legality of immigration arrests that occurred at green card interviews involving spouses of U.S. citizens who were in the process of seeking provisional waivers of unlawful presence.
Plaintiffs, represented by civil liberties advocates, have described the practice as ‘‘bait and switch’’ enforcement that contradicts longstanding policy encouraging eligible immigrants to pursue legal status without fear of being detained during official proceedings.
Defense attorneys argued that if policy changes were intended, they should have been implemented through formal regulatory processes rather than sudden enforcement actions at interview sites.
During oral arguments before the Fourth Circuit, judges questioned how existing regulations should be interpreted and whether Immigration and Customs Enforcement properly coordinated with USCIS, including whether agents were specifically seeking out interviewees for removal.
While a ruling has not yet been issued, the case is being closely watched by immigrant communities and legal experts alike, as its outcome could influence enforcement practices across multiple states within the Fourth Circuit’s jurisdiction, including Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina.
The dispute centres on a 2024 decision from a Maryland federal court that found federal immigration officials cannot detain or remove people with final removal orders at United States Citizenship and Immigration Services appointments when they are applying for a provisional unlawful presence waiver.
Justice Department attorneys argued that the lower court’s order should be reversed because the plaintiffs in the original lawsuit already have final orders of removal and therefore ‘‘lack any right to remain in the United States,’’ stressing that the waiver process does not confer legal status or a stay of removal.
They maintained that enforcement actions taken during USCIS interviews are lawful arrests of non-citizens without current legal status, and urged the three-judge panel to overturn the Maryland injunction.
The case arose from a class-action lawsuit filed in 2020 challenging the legality of immigration arrests that occurred at green card interviews involving spouses of U.S. citizens who were in the process of seeking provisional waivers of unlawful presence.
Plaintiffs, represented by civil liberties advocates, have described the practice as ‘‘bait and switch’’ enforcement that contradicts longstanding policy encouraging eligible immigrants to pursue legal status without fear of being detained during official proceedings.
Defense attorneys argued that if policy changes were intended, they should have been implemented through formal regulatory processes rather than sudden enforcement actions at interview sites.
During oral arguments before the Fourth Circuit, judges questioned how existing regulations should be interpreted and whether Immigration and Customs Enforcement properly coordinated with USCIS, including whether agents were specifically seeking out interviewees for removal.
While a ruling has not yet been issued, the case is being closely watched by immigrant communities and legal experts alike, as its outcome could influence enforcement practices across multiple states within the Fourth Circuit’s jurisdiction, including Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina.
