Judge Blocks ICE Agents From Conducting Arrests at Immigration Courts in New York

The judge said ICE agents are only allowed to make arrests at immigration courts when there are ‘serious threats of physical harm to public safety.’

A federal officer stands by in a hallway at New York Federal Plaza Immigration Court inside the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building in New York City on Oct. 1, 2025. Charly Triballeau / AFP via Getty Images

A federal judge issued a ruling on May 18 barring federal agents from conducting arrests at three immigration courts in the New York City borough of Manhattan, except in limited circumstances.

The ruling by Judge P. Kevin Castel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York stemmed from a lawsuit filed by the New York Civil Liberties Union and other groups on behalf of The Door and African Communities Together, which sought to challenge U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) policies that allow federal agents to arrest people in immigration courts.

Castel had initially declined to block the policy last September, but the plaintiffs later filed a motion in response to a March letter in which the government admitted that the 2025 ICE guidance—which it had relied on to justify arrests at immigration courts following the lawsuit—“does not and has never applied” to civil immigration enforcement actions at immigration courts.

In a 15-page ruling on May 18, Castel granted the plaintiffs’ request to stay the ICE policy, barring federal agents from arresting people at three Manhattan immigration courts—26 Federal Plaza, 201 Varick Street, and 290 Broadway—except under “certain enumerated circumstances.”

“There is a strong governmental interest in enforcing immigration laws,“ Castel stated. ”There is also a serious interest of The Door to be free to assist its members in defending removal proceedings brought against them and pursuing defensive asylum applications before an [immigration judge] without fear of arrest.”

The judge noted that ICE agents are only allowed to make arrests at immigration courts when there are “serious threats of physical harm to public safety.”

Castel also said the government’s concession that the 2025 policies did not apply to immigration courts warranted reexamining his previous ruling “to correct a clear error and prevent a manifest injustice.”

In a March 24 letter addressed to Castel, government lawyers expressed regret over a “material mistaken statement of fact” presented to the court and said it was caused by “agency attorney error.”

“This error, however, was not caused by a lack of diligence and care by the undersigned attorneys,“ the letter states. ”The undersigned were specifically informed by ICE that the 2025 ICE Guidance applied to immigration courthouse arrests.”

Amy Belsher, director of Immigrants’ Rights Litigation at the New York Civil Liberties Union, called the latest ruling “an enormous win for noncitizen New Yorkers seeking to safely attend their immigration court proceedings.”

“We look forward to a final ruling in the case that sets aside these cruel, pointless policies once and for all,” Belsher said in a May 18 statement.

In an emailed statement to The Epoch Times, a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, said that “it is commonsense to take illegal aliens into custody following the completion of their removal proceedings.”

“Nothing prohibits arresting a lawbreaker where you find them,“ the spokesperson said. ”We are confident we will ultimately be vindicated in this case.”