Immigration Tracker: Updates on H1B, ICE face coverings and more

California law forbids ICE from making civil arrests inside courthouses, but agents have continued to bypass the statute. Civil Code § 43.54, intended to protect immigrants from harassment or apprehension while seeking justice, does not bind federal officers. In San Francisco and across the state, courthouse arrests have increased, along with raids in car washes, hospitals, schools, and churches.

In response, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a package of “sanctuary laws” on Sept. 20 aimed at limiting Trump’s immigration crackdown in sensitive locations:

• Senate Bill 98: Requires immigration enforcement officers to present a judicial warrant or court order to enter a school facility; schools must notify communities of enforcement actions.
• Senate Bill 805: Requires law enforcement officials to identify themselves and maintain visible identification.
• Assembly Bill 49: Bars school facilities from allowing immigration enforcement officers on campus without a warrant.
• Senate Bill 627: Prohibits law enforcement officers from wearing face coverings while on duty.
• Senate Bill 81: Prohibits immigration enforcement officials from entering restricted areas of healthcare facilities without a warrant or court order. 

The laws are a direct response to Trump administration policy changes. On Jan. 21, Trump rescinded guidelines that discouraged enforcement in sensitive locations, giving ICE broad discretion to operate in and around schools, churches, and hospitals.Lawsuits have followed. On Feb. 24, a federal judge issued a temporary injunction blocking ICE from entering places of worship or targeting immigrants nearby without a warrant. But on April 11, another judge ruled in favor of the Trump administration, allowing ICE to resume enforcement operations in houses of worship — a major blow to religious groups seeking to protect immigrant congregants.

On Sept. 22, the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Maine, along with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinic, and the law firms Foley Hoag and Araujo & Fisher, filed a federal court complaint challenging the policy.

Under the new rules, immigrants must remain detained for the duration of their removal proceedings — a process that can take months or even years. Immigration judges no longer have the discretion to grant release; only ICE officers may authorize parole in limited cases.

Advocates say the policy will impact millions of immigrants, including longtime residents with no criminal history. They argue it violates due process and makes it harder for people to access legal representation or remain connected with family.

The policy marks a major departure from previous Justice Department rules, which allowed detained immigrants to seek bond if they could prove at least two years of U.S. residence.

The change comes alongside a new $45 billion funding law that doubles ICE’s detention capacity to 100,000 people per day. Since then, immigrants in at least a dozen states have reportedly been denied bond hearings.

According to data from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University, 58,766 people were held in ICE detention as of Sept. 7, 2025 — down from 61,226 on Aug. 24, though still among the highest levels in recent years. 

After a wave of immigration raids across Los Angeles this June — which sparked protests, fear in immigrant neighborhoods and a federal lawsuit — a federal judge blocked indiscriminate arrests in parts of Southern California on July 11. The decision, however, was bypassed by a Supreme Court ruling on Sept. 8, allowing agents to indiscriminately target people in Los Angeles based on race, language, employment, or location. The decision allows agents to resume immigration arrests and raids in the region.

The case stemmed from a lawsuit filed by three immigrants arrested at a Pasadena bus stop and two U.S. citizens detained alongside them — one of whom reportedly showed agents valid identification but was still held.

Earlier this year, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a similar suit after the Border Patrol ran a three-day sweep in Kern County in mid-January, arresting 78 people. Officials claimed they were targeting individuals with criminal or immigration violations, but a CalMatters investigation found only one of those detained had a criminal record. A federal court later issued an injunction on April 29 banning warrantless stops in California’s Eastern District, which spans from Redding to Bakersfield. 

In response to these raids and what he called federal overreach, Gov. Newsom signed a bill on Sept. 20 banning local and federal officials from wearing non-medical masks during operations unless they are undercover.  How the state will enforce the law remains unclear. Over the past year, federal officials have defended the practice, saying ICE agents hide their identities to protect themselves from harassment.

The H1-B visa is widely used by high-skilled foreign workers, especially those in the tech industry.  Federal officials say the new fee will reduce the number of H1-B applicants and push companies to only hire the “best of the best.” However, Trump’s proclamation, which sidestepped Congress, is expected to face legal challenges. 

This isn’t the first time that the Trump Administration has implemented policies to limit the number of professionals who can legally live and work in the United States, citing concerns of fraud and over workplaces issuing work visas in a way that doesn’t “put American workers first.”

On July 5, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) also narrowed down the eligibility criteria for the TN-Visa, available to Mexicans and Canadians with certain bachelor’s degrees. The visa allows many Mexicans to legally work in the U.S. for three years with unlimited renewals in specific fields. 

Under the new guidelines, healthcare workers who interact with patients, mechanics, software engineers or electricians no longer qualify. USCIS also hardened its eligibility criteria, not allowing TN visa holders to work for non-U.S. companies or as independent contractors.  Their degree must also now directly match their current profession.

The data-sharing stems from one of Trump’s executive orders directing federal agencies to cooperate with immigration authorities. Among them was HHS, which complied by giving the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) data on millions of Medicaid enrollees, despite objections from Medicaid officials who warned it could violate patient privacy. The dataset included information from Medi-Cal beneficiaries in California, where state funds cover immigrants’ full-scope coverage.  

In response, 20 states filed a lawsuit that led to the injunction. California separately sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture to stop it from sharing data of people who receive SNAP benefits. 

Meanwhile, the IRS started sharing taxpayer information with immigration authorities in mid-August, following an April 8 agreement with the Trump Administration. The move broke with decades of IRS policy prioritizing taxpayer confidentiality, including for undocumented filers. The decision sparked high-profile resignations, including acting IRS Service Commissioner Melanie Krause.

Immigrant rights groups and tax experts warn the deal could deter millions of undocumented workers from filing taxes, risking their income, tax refunds and legal safety. In 2023 alone, undocumented immigrants paid $66 billion in federal taxes, according to Yale Budget Lab.

Similarly, in late March, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) started sharing data with DHS on undocumented immigrants who receive housing assistance through family members with legal status. 

In parts of California, some law enforcement agencies have also illegally shared license plate data with immigration authorities, including Oakland and San Francisco.

Chen’s ruling allows more than 600,000 Venezuelans — whose temporary protections expired earlier this year or were set to expire Sept. 10 — to continue living and working in the U.S. It also preserves protections for approximately 500,000 Haitians. In August, a U.S. District Court judge in New York had also previously delayed the decision for Haitian TPS holders until February 2026.

Some nationalities, however, have lost designations following unsuccessful legal battles. After weeks of legal back-and-forth, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overruled a California judge’s ruling that had postponed the end of TPS for Hondurans and Nicaraguans until November, allowing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to terminate protections in early September. 

TPS provides deportation relief and work permits to immigrants from 17 countries facing armed conflict, natural disasters or other emergencies. Designations last 18 months and can be extended by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).  

Earlier this year, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem reversed Biden-era actions and ended existing protections for Venezuelans, putting more than one million TPS holders at risk, including 350,000 Venezuelans whose protections were due to expire in April. 

After a federal judge in San Francisco paused the termination while a lawsuit challenging the order was pending, the Trump administration argued before the Supreme Court that the ruling interfered with executive authority over immigration. Officials also claimed that ending TPS would not lead to immediate deportation, and that affected individuals could pursue other legal options to stay in the U.S.

On May 19, the Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration, allowing it to end deportation protections for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans. Justices said individual immigrants can still appeal if the government tries to cancel their work permits or deport them. The case continued to be litigated.

The Trump Administration previously failed to end TPS for Sudan, Nicaragua, Haiti, El Salvador, Nepal and Honduras in 2017 and 2018.

Oakland’s local rapid response hotline reported that on Sept. 17, ICE agents in unmarked vehicles stopped two immigrants at a red light, asked about their immigration status and then detained them after identifying themselves as ICE.  

Earlier in the month, the Trump administration launched a major immigration enforcement operation in Chicago after weeks of threats to send federal agents to the city. In August, Trump threatened to deploy the National Guard to Chicago and other Democratic-led cities, including San Francisco, and promised to increase immigration enforcement in sanctuary cities.

Trump previously sent the National Guard to Los Angeles in June and still has active troops in Washington D.C., citing concerns of lawless behavior. In both cities, the deployments coincided with heightened immigration enforcement. 

On Sept. 2, however, a federal judge blocked the Trump administration from deploying the National Guard to California, ruling that the president’s June order sending troops to Los Angeles was illegal. 

Meanwhile, a July spending bill authorizing nearly $170 billion for immigration enforcement is expected to accelerate deportations. The expanded budget funds 20,000 additional officers and doubles detention capacity.

Since May, immigration agencies have increased pressure on asylum seekers by attempting to dismiss their cases, arresting them outside their court appointments and detaining them at ICE check-ins. In San Francisco, most of the uptick in enforcement has taken place at immigration courthouses.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has increasingly petitioned judges to dismiss asylum cases in immigration court. Even when judges refuse, enforcement agents have arrested asylum seekers outside appointments and sent them to detention centers. Some have also been detained during check-ins. 

Increasingly in San Francisco, asylum seekers without active deportation orders have won release after lawyers filed habeas corpus petitions, arguing these arrests violate due process. If successful, the newly filed class-action lawsuit could affect all immigrants under ICE’s San Francisco jurisdiction, including those currently detained or at risk of being held at 630 Sansome.

The arrests are not the only way the Trump administration is targeting asylum seekers. According to NPR, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has begun dismissing the cases of some asylum seekers who never received a credible-fear interview at the border. Those affected must restart the process, which attorneys warn could land them in detention.  

Meanwhile, attorneys and former staff say the administration appears to be targeting judges more likely to grant asylum or with backgrounds in immigrant rights advocacy. On Sept. 9, the Trump administration dismissed San Francisco’s top immigration judge, Loi McCleskey. The week before, Judge Shira Levine — who had one of the highest asylum-granting rates in San Francisco — was also dismissed, along with two other judges. In total, Trump has removed about one-third of San Francisco’s 21 immigration judges.

Judge Chloe Dillion, who was fired after nearly 25 years of federal service, said she was “shell-shocked” by the wave of firings.

Immigrant advocates and attorneys say the firings are part of a broader Trump administration strategy to sow fear and destabilize immigration courts. Nationwide, more than 100 immigration judges have been fired, according to the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

Already implemented reforms include increased vetting, stricter reviews of disability, prioritizing examples of “good moral character” (as opposed to the absence of bad behavior) and the resumption of neighborhood investigations. 

USCIS said other initiatives will be announced in the coming months

Attorneys and former staff say the administration appears to be targeting judges more likely to grant asylum or with backgrounds in immigrant rights advocacy. Last week, Judge Shira Levine, who had one of the highest asylum-granting rates in San Francisco, was also dismissed, along with two other judges in the city. In total, Trump has removed about one-third of the 21 immigration judges who had been serving in San Francisco.

Some of the ousted judges are speaking out. Judge Chloe Dillion, who was fired after nearly 25 years of federal service, said she was “shell-shocked” by the wave of firings.

As the court’s supervising judge, McCleskey oversaw an office that granted asylum at a higher rate than the national average (50%). Her own approval rate stood at 72%, according to data from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University.

Immigrant advocates and attorneys say the firings are part of a broader Trump administration strategy to sow fear and destabilize immigration courts.

The conservative majority’s ruling marks a significant victory for the Trump administration, advancing Trump’s promise to carry out the “largest mass deportation” in U.S. history. In a sharp dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the decision “yet another grave misuse of our emergency docket. We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low-wage job.”

Following the ruling, the administration announced it began conducting immigration arrests in Chicago on Monday morning, heightening fears about the scale of upcoming ICE raids. The Department of Homeland Security has dubbed the operation “Operation Midway Blitz,” targeting immigrant communities across Chicago. Hundreds of DHS officials are reportedly staging operations from a naval base on the city’s outskirts.

Sanctuary cities across the U.S., including San Francisco, are closely monitoring developments in Chicago as they brace for sweeping ICE activity in their own regions.

In one of its most controversial actions to date, the Trump administration invoked the Alien Enemies Act on March 15 to target individuals allegedly linked to the Tren de Aragua gang, rapidly deporting 238 Venezuelans to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador without due process.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) challenged the order the same day, and a federal judge temporarily blocked further deportations. The pause was upheld by an appeals court on March 28, but on April 7, the Supreme Court overturned it in a 5-4 decision, ruling the lawsuit had been filed in the wrong venue (Washington, D.C., instead of Texas). In a partial win for due process, however, the justices also ruled that detained immigrants must receive timely notice and an opportunity to challenge their deportation through habeas corpus proceedings.

The Supreme Court sent the case back to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to determine how much time migrants are given to challenge their deportations and whether the act’s use was legal in the first place.

Since then, additional rulings have limited enforcement:

• April 18: The Supreme Court ruled 7–2 to block the removal of a group of Venezuelan migrants detained in North Texas. That same day, the Trump administration said it would proceed under other immigration laws to deport them.
• April 28: A district court judge ruled Trump’s use of the act “unlawful” and barred deportations of Venezuelans in South Texas under the policy. Judges in other cities, like Los Angeles and El Paso, have also issued similar rulings over the past few weeks. 
• June 4: Judge James Boasberg ruled that the March deportations of 140 Venezuelan men to El Salvador were illegal. In his ruling, he allowed the deportees to challenge their removal, although he did not directly order the Trump administration to bring them back.

More than a month later, the 252 men sent to El Salvador were released to Venezuela in a prisoner exchange. Several have since shared stories of human rights violations that they say happened while inside CECOT.