New York federal judge bans ICE arrests at Manhattan immigration courts
Ruling blocks detentions at three federal courthouses except in rare cases amid protests over tactics
A federal judge in New York has banned US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from arresting immigrants in or around three federal courthouses in lower Manhattan, where vigorous confrontations have played out since the start of Donald Trump’s second presidency.
Under an order issued on Monday by P Kevin Castel, a US district judge, federal agents are no longer allowed to make arrests of immigrants except under exceptional circumstances at the sites where hearings are held before immigration judges.
Castel’s ruling came in response to a lawsuit brought by the New York Civil Liberties Union, the American Civil Liberties Union, Make the Road NY and other groups.
The ACLU’s Amy Belsher called the ruling “an enormous win for noncitizen New Yorkers seeking to safely attend their immigration court proceedings”.
Castel said that his ruling applied to immigration courts at 26 Federal Plaza and two other Manhattan locations – 201 Varick Street and 290 Broadway. The ruling does not apply nationwide.
In a 15-page order, Castel said that while there was “a strong governmental interest in enforcing immigration laws”, there also was a serious interest in letting individuals attend removal proceedings and pursue asylum claims before a judge “without fear of arrest”.
Castel also noted that federal agents still can detain individuals at locations away from immigration courts and also can make arrests at immigration courthouses when there is a serious threat to public safety.
The lower Manhattan federal buildings, including 26 Federal Plaza where ICE maintains an office, have been the site of immigrants arrests, related protests and standoffs between agents and demonstrators which have included the detention of local elected officials.
Castel said the boundaries set out in federal policy in April 2021 regarding enforcement actions inside courthouse can remain in effect. He also said that a court case before him was likely to result in a ruling that it was “arbitrary and capricious” for the second Trump administration to withdraw that policy.
The judge had initially cleared the way for arrests at Manhattan immigration courts in September. But he said that government attorneys had recently reversed their position on the matter, saying they have learned that 2025 policies regarding arrests in and around courthouses set by the Trump administration did not apply to immigration courts after all.
He said the government’s new position meant it was necessary to “correct a clear error and prevent a manifest injustice”.
Castel wrote that federal prosecutors apologized to him in March for a “material mistaken statement of fact that the government made to the court”. The Trump administration blamed the mistake on “agency attorney error”, withdrawing “portions of four briefs” as well as “statements” made during oral argument.
Castel’s ruling on Monday comes after there had been highly publicized tensions between protesters and federal immigration authorities in cities such as Los Angeles and Minneapolis.
The latter city saw widespread street protests after federal agents shot 37-year-old US citizens, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, to death in separate cases in January.
In the wake of those killings, polling revealed most Americans believed immigration agents had gone too far with their tactics. And, with midterm elections looming in the fall, the Trump administration made agency leadership changes.
African Communities Together and the Door, groups involved in the legal action yielding Castel’s ruling on Monday, had argued that making arrests at federal immigration locations was a “profoundly unfair” practice that “undermined the rule of law and the integrity of immigration courts”.
The Door’s Beth Baltimore said that the judge’s decision “brings us hope” and said the group “continues to work tirelessly to support … members who were terrified to go to their required court appearances”.
So the bottom line is the ACLU’s Amy Belsher called the ruling “an enormous win for noncitizen New Yorkers seeking to safely attend their immigration court proceedings”. Wonder how this will land.
The bigger issue here is the boundaries set out in federal policy in April 2021 regarding enforcement actions inside courthouse can remain in effect. That changes the calculation.
When you look at ruling blocks detentions at three federal courthouses except in rare cases amid protests over, the implications are hard to ignore.
So the bottom line is castel’s ruling came in response to a lawsuit brought by the New York Civil Liberties Union, the American Civil Liberties Union, Make the Road NY and other groups. Wonder how this will land.
The bigger issue here is that his ruling applied to immigration courts at 26 Federal Plaza and two other Manhattan locations – 201 Varick Street and 290 Broadway. That changes the calculation.
The fact that that his ruling applied to immigration courts at 26 Federal Plaza and two other Manhattan locations – 201 Varick Street and 290 Broadway really puts things into perspective.
The detail about the boundaries set out in federal policy in April 2021 regarding enforcement actions inside courthouse can remain in effect is something people should sit with.
So the bottom line is that his ruling applied to immigration courts at 26 Federal Plaza and two other Manhattan locations – 201 Varick Street and 290 Broadway. Wonder how this will land.
When you look at castel’s ruling came in response to a lawsuit brought by the New York Civil Liberties Union, the American Civil Liberties Union, Make the Road NY and other groups, the implications are hard to ignore.
If castel’s ruling came in response to a lawsuit brought by the New York Civil Liberties Union, the American Civil Liberties Union, Make the Road NY and other groups, then the bigger picture starts to look very different.
Basically ruling blocks detentions at three federal courthouses except in rare cases amid protests over. What matters is whether anything changes because of it.
What stands out is the boundaries set out in federal policy in April 2021 regarding enforcement actions inside courthouse can remain in effect. That is the part worth paying attention to.
Think about it: the boundaries set out in federal policy in April 2021 regarding enforcement actions inside courthouse can remain in effect. That speaks volumes.
Reading that ruling blocks detentions at three federal courthouses except in rare cases amid protests over — hard to argue with the logic there.
What stands out is ruling blocks detentions at three federal courthouses except in rare cases amid protests over. That is the part worth paying attention to.