WHEREAS, Philadelphia is the birthplace of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, signed in 1776 and 1787, respectively; and

WHEREAS, the Philadelphia Bar Association, founded in 1802, serves as the oldest association of attorneys in the United States and is committed to upholding the principles of democracy as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution; and

WHEREAS, the Philadelphia Bar Association is committed to supporting access to the fair and effective administration of justice for all litigants, witnesses, and individuals involved in the justice system; and

WHEREAS, the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania supports individuals having “. . .certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness;”¹ and

WHEREAS, the Pennsylvania Constitution also provides that “[a]ll courts shall be open. . .and right and justice [shall be] administered without sale, denial or delay;”² and

WHEREAS, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) have issued the following directives which are impeding fair access to the justice system:

1. DHS issued a directive on January 20, 2025 (the “January 20 Directive”) with regard to ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection enforcement actions in or near protected areas which superseded and rescinded their prior October 27, 2021 directive which had mandated that certain locations required special protection from such enforcement actions (with their current directive now, instead, setting forth overly broad discretion for where enforcement actions can occur); and
2. ICE issued a directive for interim guidance on January 21, 2025 (the “January 21 Directive”) which further removed protections and permits ICE officers and agents to conduct civil immigration enforcement actions in or near courthouses on a “case-by-case basis” if they feel they have “credible information” that the targets of their enforcement actions may be in or near the location; and

WHEREAS, the January 21 Directive defines a “civil immigration enforcement” action to be “any action taken by an ICE officer or agent to apprehend, arrest, interview, or search an alien in connection with enforcement of administrative immigration violations,” with the policy not applying to any criminal immigration enforcement actions inside courthouses; and

WHEREAS, the January 21 Directive does not require judicial warrants for ICE enforcement actions in or near courthouses or provide definitive rules or guidance as to what constitutes “credible evidence” or any guidance regarding how officers and agents should proceed, except to state they must “exercise sound judgment;” and

WHEREAS, the January 21 Directive’s overly broad, sweeping, and unreasonable power conveyed to ICE agents and officers is causing:

1. Significant interference with the administration of justice by causing fear among those who need to appear in or near courthouses, including but not limited to litigants, witnesses, family members, and others involved in the justice system; and
2. Missed court and administrative appearances, delays, and default judgments due to witnesses and those seeking legal assistance, including in domestic violence cases, being so intimidated that they are forced to forgo testifying and personally appearing; and
3. Immediate risks to public safety given the chilling effect on participation in the justice system; and
4. The unlawful ability to weaponize fear of ICE enforcement actions to intimidate witnesses and others into not appearing in hearings and other court listings; and

WHEREAS, the fairness of the U.S. justice system heavily relies upon the ability for litigants, witnesses, and all those involved in court matters to actively participate in cases brought before the court; and

WHEREAS, the unauthorized disclosure by court and administrative office personnel (to ICE or those who seek to cause intimidation through ICE) of individuals’ non-public citizenship and other personal information obtained through the judicial process endangers court participants and undermines confidence in the justice system; and

WHEREAS, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race or national origin by government agencies receiving federal funds which includes DHS, ICE, and the court systems; and

WHEREAS, the January 20 Directive and the January 21 Directive, as written, create significant risks of discrimination based on race and national origin, as these directives do not offer any clear guidance for ICE enforcement actions, including failing to specifically define the “credible evidence” that would allow such actions in or near courthouses; and

WHEREAS, the Philadelphia courts and administrative offices have the power to create policies, regulations and/or rules, as applicable, for stricter control and protections of non-public citizenship and other personal information collected during the judicial process from being released without proper authorization; and

WHEREAS, the Philadelphia courts and administrative offices have successfully used, and continue to use, in certain circumstances, remote participation for matters to ensure access to justice; and

WHEREAS, Philadelphia Courts, and state and local administrative agencies, have the power to implement policies, regulations, and/or rules, as applicable, expanding opportunities for remote participation (upon application and good cause shown) to those who fear appearing in person due to intimidation, including intimidation relating to the threat of ICE enforcement actions, and adoption of such expanded opportunities for remote participation would further the administration of justice; and

WHEREAS, the Philadelphia Bar Association has strongly supported the need for balance between the enforcement actions granted to ICE with the Constitutional right of all individuals, including immigrants, to access the judicial system, as seen in:

1. The July 29, 2010 Resolution which supported sanctuary policies and highlighted that “local enforcement relies on the immigrant community’s trust to report crime, and victims and witnesses will be hesitant to come forward if their immigration status will be the subject of investigation;” and
2. The September 29, 2016 Resolution which opposed Pennsylvania House Bill No. 1885 on "Sanctuary Cities," and called on the Pennsylvania General Assembly to oppose "any other bill that would punish counties or municipalities for making the decision to disentangle local policing from enforcement of civil immigration laws;" and
3. The March 30, 2017 Resolution which opposed Pennsylvania Senate Bill No. 273 on "Sanctuary Campuses," and recognized that “campus law enforcement collaboration with ICE would undermine trust in campus public safety services, leading many immigrants to avoid coming forward to seek protection, report crimes, and cooperate in investigations, and possibly to avoid participating and engaging in intellectual pursuits with their peers and instructors;” and
4. The April 25, 2019 Resolution which called on Pennsylvania Courts and Administrative Law Agencies to implement policies to limit communication with ICE by court or agency personnel and to monitor ICE access to courthouses, administrative hearing offices, and probation offices for immigration enforcement.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Philadelphia Bar Association calls for the immediate recission of the January 20, 2025 Department of Homeland Security Directive and the January 21, 2025 interim directive issued by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Philadelphia Bar Association expresses its strong support for:

1. The creation of policies, regulations, and/or rules, as applicable, that prohibit probation officers and other court or administrative hearing office personnel from detaining individuals in or near courthouses on behalf of ICE, unless a valid judicial warrant exists; and
2. The creation of policies, regulations, and/or rules, as applicable, that would prohibit court and administrative office personnel from inquiring about the immigration and/or citizenship status of those involved in the court system, and that would prohibit sharing non-public citizenship and other personal information beyond the confines of the judicial process; and
3. The courts and administrative offices expeditiously adopting and fully implementing policies, regulations and/or rules, as applicable, that expand opportunities for remote appearances, upon application and good cause shown, for individuals who seek to participate in the justice system and who require remote participation to avoid intimidation, including intimidation and interference from ICE;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Chancellor or the Chancellor’s designee is authorized to communicate the contents of these resolutions to representatives of the Pennsylvania Courts, including representatives of the First Judicial District and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the Workers’ Compensation Office of Adjudication, the directors of other Pennsylvania administrative agencies, members of the General Assembly, the Governor, state and local public officials, and the public at large;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Chancellor or the Chancellor’s designee is authorized to take such other action as may be appropriate including, but not limited to, coordinating with other bar associations, and calling on representatives of the Pennsylvania Courts, including the First Judicial District and/or the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and the Administrative Law Agencies of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, including the Workers’ Compensation Office of Adjudication, to develop and implement policies, regulations and/or rules, as applicable, consistent with these resolutions.

PHILADELPHIA BAR ASSOCIATION
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
ADOPTED: April 17, 2025

---

¹ Pa. Const. art. I, § 1.

² Pa. Const. art. I, § 11.