Judge Tosses DOJ Lawsuit, Upholds NY State Law Curbing ICE Arrests in Courthouses

The federal judge said New York was protecting its sovereignty ‘in the face of undue federal interference.’

Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers arrest an illegal immigrant during an operation in the Bushwick neighborhood of Brooklyn, N.Y., on April 11, 2018. John Moore/Getty Images

A federal judge in Albany dismissed a Department of Justice lawsuit against New York over state laws curtailing civil immigration arrests in courthouses, dealing a blow to the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement agenda.

The 41-page ruling, written by U.S. District Judge Mae D'Agostino and issued on Nov. 17, affirmed New York’s Protect Our Courts Act (POCA) in addition to Executive Orders 170 and 170.1, throwing out claims of federal immunity and intergovernmental immunity violations.

The lawsuit, which was filed in June, argued that the laws violated the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause, which states that federal law supersedes conflicting state laws.

D'Agostino shot down that argument, saying New York was “[protecting] its sovereign interests in the face of undue federal interference.”

The judge also accused the federal government of seeking to take over state resources.

“The United States’ own allegations make plain its desire to commandeer New York’s resources to aid in federal immigration efforts,” the ruling reads.

POCA, which became law in 2020 amid an increase in Immigration and Enforcement (ICE) courthouse arrests during Trump’s first term, shields individuals attending court proceedings—including parties, witnesses, and family members—from civil arrest without a judicial warrant.

The law defines “family or household member” as covering relatives, spouses, co-parents, and intimate partners. Violations can result in contempt or false imprisonment charges, which could result in up to four years in prison.

Executive Order 170 (2017) prohibits state employees from disclosing immigration status to federal authorities except when required by law, while 170.1 (2018) prohibits civil arrests in state facilities without a warrant.

“The Court agrees with Defendants that the United States’ preemption challenges to these Executive Orders fail because neither executive order conflicts with federal law,” D'Agostino wrote.

The DOJ filed suit in June, arguing that the policies prevented ICE operations under the Immigration and Nationality Act. New York moved to dismiss the lawsuit in August, filing amicus briefs from immigrant advocates, former judges, and district attorneys.

D'Agostino’s decision builds on previous court decisions, such as a 2019 ruling in which a court found that such policies are not preempted as they represent voluntary noncooperation as allowed by the 10th Amendment.

The administration has argued that sanctuary city laws are dangerous for the public and hinder the federal government’s ability to do its job.

“Sanctuary policies impede law enforcement and put American citizens at risk by design,” Attorney General Pamela Bondi said when the DOJ published a list of states, cities, and counties identified as undermining federal immigration laws. “The Department of Justice will continue bringing litigation against sanctuary jurisdictions and work closely with the Department of Homeland Security to eradicate these harmful policies around the country.”