The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is hearing an appeal by the Department of Justice challenging a 2024 federal court order that barred U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from arresting immigrants during green card interviews with their U.S. citizen spouses.Why It MattersAcross the United States, migrants without legal status or those with pending green card applications have been arrested by ICE during scheduled immigration appointments, including Form I‑130 marriage-based interviews. Advocates describe the practice as part of a hard-line enforcement policy aimed at individuals who are in the process of adjusting their status, a shift from prior guidance that generally allowed people to attend these appointments without fear of immediate detention.The arrests have sparked legal challenges, including ongoing appeals over whether such enforcement violates due process and existing provisional waiver regulations.What To KnowThe appeal stems from a class‑action lawsuit originally filed in 2020 by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of individuals who said they were arrested or faced the risk of arrest while attending Form I‑130 marriage‑based adjustment of status interviews with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Those plaintiffs sought to participate in the provisional unlawful presence waiver process, a regulatory pathway introduced by the Department of Homeland Security in 2013 and expanded in 2016 that can allow certain undocumented immigrants to seek lawful status while avoiding prolonged separation from family.In 2024, a federal district court in Maryland granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs and enjoined ICE from arresting, detaining or removing class members during these interviews. That order currently applies within the Fourth Circuit’s jurisdiction....At oral argument on Thursday before the three‑judge panel, government attorneys reiterated their position that individuals with final orders of removal do not have a legal right to remain in the United States and that the provisional waiver regulations do not confer legal status or protect against deportation. They urged the appeals court to overturn the lower court’s injunction, saying enforcement of valid removal orders remains lawful.Lawyers for the plaintiffs, by contrast, described the enforcement practice as undermining the waiver process and argued that if the government seeks to change longstanding policy, it must do so through formal regulatory procedures rather than through informal enforcement changes. ACLU attorneys argued that individuals attending interviews in reliance on existing guidance were effectively subjected to a “bait and switch.”“If you want to change that policy, you have to issue new rules, or you have to rescind the old ones,” said Michael Abrams, an attorney working with the ACLU of Maryland.Judges on the panel questioned both sides on the regulatory text and the scope of agency authority, without announcing a timeline for a decision.Appellate Judge Pamela A. Harris concluded the hearing by asking the federal government’s attorney whether green card interviews were being specifically targeted.“Are you in a position to tell us whether the government is targeting people for removal based on the fact that they are in this process or not?” Harris said."Mary Larakers, a Justice Department attorney, told the court that ICE agents do not have information about the provisional waiver process when arresting applicants."“ICE was just taking enforcement actions when and where it could,” Larakers said. “And it happened to be that some people who were class members got arrested at I-130 interviews.”Under the first Trump administration, immigration agents began arresting individuals who had final removal orders when they attended their green card interviews with their spouses.The litigation stems in part from the 2018 arrest of Wanrong Lin, a Maryland father of three, who was taken into custody during a routine marriage interview after U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services confirmed the validity of his 14-year marriage. A federal judge later issued an emergency order addressing the conduct and requiring government action to prevent similar incidents.What People Are SayingMary Larakers, a Justice Department attorney, said during oral arguments Thursday: “This court should reverse and vacate the District Court’s sweeping declaratory judgment, which allows even dangerous criminal aliens to remain in the United States despite their final orders of removal."The ACLU said in a statement that it is "challenging ICE’s long-running 'bait and switch' practice of luring immigrants to required marriage interviews as part of their legal path to residency, only to arrest and deport them when they show up."What Happens NextThe outcome of this appeal could influence whether immigration enforcement at certain USCIS interview sites resumes. It could influence how ICE enforces removal orders at immigration appointments nationwide, shaping whether families can safely navigate the legal process to gain lawful status.In a polarized era, the center is dismissed as bland. At Newsweek, ours is different: The Courageous Center—it's not "both sides," it's sharp, challenging and alive with ideas. We follow facts, not factions. If that sounds like the kind of journalism you want to see thrive, we need you.When you become a Newsweek Member, you support a mission to keep the center strong and vibrant. Members enjoy: Ad-free browsing, exclusive content and editor conversations. Help keep the center courageous. Join today.