A federal judge in Manhattan largely blocked U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement from conducting civil immigration arrests at several New York City immigration courthouses on Monday, ordering agents to temporarily revert to narrower Biden-era restrictions while a broader lawsuit moves forward.
U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel issued the ruling after government lawyers admitted they had made what they called a “material mistaken statement of fact” while defending the administration’s enforcement policy in court. The admission forced the judge to revisit an earlier decision in which he had declined to halt the policy.
The order does not shut down courthouse enforcement entirely. ICE may still arrest individuals who pose national security threats, present an imminent risk of violence, are subjects of hot pursuit, or threaten criminal evidence. But for the routine civil immigration arrests that have defined the administration’s aggressive posture inside New York’s immigration courts, the ruling amounts to a judicial stop sign, at least for now.
The dispute centers on a May 2025 ICE courthouse enforcement memo that expanded the agency’s authority to make arrests in and around courthouses. Immigrant advocacy groups sued, arguing the Trump administration’s enforcement policies effectively turned mandatory immigration hearings into arrest operations.
Earlier in 2025, Judge Castel declined to block the policy. But Justice Department lawyers later informed the court in March that they needed to correct prior claims that the May 2025 memo applied to immigration courts. The government acknowledged the guidance “does not and has never applied” to immigration courts, a reversal that undercut the legal position DOJ had staked out in earlier proceedings.
Castel wrote that the reversal justified reopening the question “to correct a clear error and prevent a manifest injustice.” He found that plaintiffs were likely to succeed in arguing the administration acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it rescinded a 2021 ICE policy restricting courthouse arrests without adequately explaining how the new approach applied to immigration courts.
That is a damaging finding. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, federal agencies cannot simply tear up existing policies and replace them without reasoned explanation. When the government’s own lawyers have to walk back a factual claim in open court, the credibility problem compounds fast.
The ruling arrives against a backdrop of visible, sometimes dramatic enforcement activity at New York immigration courts. On June 26, ICE agents detained dozens of immigrants inside the Federal Plaza courthouse following their legal proceedings. On July 23, federal agents detained an individual after that person exited immigration court at the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building in Manhattan.
On June 8, members of the NYPD Strategic Response Group entered 26 Federal Plaza, where immigration court is located. NYC Comptroller Brad Lander and Public Advocate Jumaane Williams also visited the court to observe proceedings amid ongoing detentions.
For the advocacy groups behind the lawsuit, these episodes illustrated their core argument: that immigrants ordered to appear at mandatory hearings were walking into what amounted to enforcement traps.
Amy Belsher, director of immigrants’ rights litigation at the NYCLU, framed the ruling as a major win.
“Today’s ruling is an enormous win for noncitizen New Yorkers seeking to safely attend their immigration court proceedings.”
Fox News Digital reached out to the Department of Homeland Security for comment but did not immediately receive a response.
Castel’s order does not stand alone. A federal judge in Northern California, U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts, separately blocked the administration’s expanded courthouse-arrest policies within ICE’s San Francisco area of responsibility. Pitts found the 2025 policies were likely “arbitrary and capricious” and had not been properly implemented under federal rulemaking procedures.
Pitts wrote that the administration failed to properly consider the chilling effect courthouse arrests could have on asylum-seekers and other migrants attending immigration court proceedings.
“ICE cannot choose to ignore the ‘costs’ of its new policies, chilling the participation of noncitizens in their removal proceedings, and consider only the policies’ purported ‘benefits’ for immigration enforcement.”
The California ruling, however, conflicts with an earlier decision from a different federal judge in New York who upheld the same policies. That split between courts could set the stage for the issue to reach the Supreme Court, a prospect that should concern both the administration and its critics, since the outcome would set nationwide precedent one way or the other.
The administration’s legal setback in Manhattan did not have to happen this way. The core problem was not the policy itself but the government’s own misrepresentation about what its memo covered. When Justice Department lawyers told a federal judge that the May 2025 guidance applied to immigration courts, and then had to reverse themselves months later, they handed the other side a gift.
Judge Castel had already ruled in the administration’s favor once. He was not predisposed to block the policy. The government’s factual error gave him no choice but to reopen the matter, and this time, the plaintiffs had stronger footing.
There is a lesson here that goes beyond immigration law. When agencies expand enforcement authority, the legal work backing that expansion has to be airtight. Arbitrary-and-capricious findings under the Administrative Procedure Act are among the most common ways federal courts strike down executive action. The 2021 ICE policy restricting courthouse arrests existed on paper. Rescinding it without a thorough, documented explanation of how the replacement policy would work, including at immigration courts, was a procedural failure the administration’s opponents were always going to exploit.
The ruling leaves ICE with meaningful authority. Agents can still conduct enforcement at courthouses involving national security threats, imminent violence, hot pursuit, or threats to criminal evidence. Those are not trivial carve-outs.
But the bread-and-butter civil arrests, picking up individuals with outstanding removal orders as they arrive for or leave mandatory hearings, are now off the table at the covered Manhattan courthouses until the broader lawsuit is resolved. That changes the operational calculus for ICE in one of the busiest immigration court jurisdictions in the country.
The administration has every right to enforce immigration law, including inside courthouses. Nothing in federal statute creates a blanket sanctuary around a courthouse door. The question courts are wrestling with is narrower: whether the specific way the administration expanded enforcement, by rescinding an existing policy without adequate explanation, met the legal requirements agencies must follow when they change course.
Two federal judges in different parts of the country have now said it did not. A third reached the opposite conclusion. The conflict virtually guarantees further litigation and, likely, appellate review.
Meanwhile, the practical effect is that illegal immigrants in Manhattan can attend their immigration hearings with reduced risk of civil arrest. Advocacy groups call that a safeguard for due process. The administration would call it a constraint on lawful enforcement. Both descriptions contain some truth, but only one side showed up to court with its facts straight.
When the government’s own lawyers have to admit they got the facts wrong, it is hard to blame a judge for pulling the brake. The administration did not lose this round on the merits of enforcement. It lost on execution, and that is the kind of mistake taxpayers should not have to absorb twice.
By signing up, you agree to receive newsletters and promotional content from American Frontline News and selected publications in the American Digest Media Network, operated with Patriot Mom Digest LLC, and you accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time.
By signing up, you agree to receive newsletters and promotional content from American Frontline News and selected publications in the American Digest Media Network, operated with Patriot Mom Digest LLC, and you accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time.