NEW YORK — A federal judge has struck down Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s policy of arresting immigrants at or near courthouses while they attend required immigration proceedings, rejecting a practice that put immigrants in the position of risking detention by appearing in court or jeopardizing their cases by staying away.
U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel of the Southern District of New York ruled Sept. 30 that ICE’s 2025 courthouse arrest policy was “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act and ordered the policy set aside. The ruling applies nationwide and restores earlier restrictions on civil immigration enforcement in and near immigration courthouses except under limited circumstances.
Since President Donald Trump returned to office in 2025, ICE has expanded arrests of immigrants appearing for mandated immigration hearings, sometimes taking people into custody immediately after their court proceedings.
Among those arrested was a Bronx high school student who was detained after appearing for a routine immigration court date, according to The New York Times.
The lawsuit was brought by African Communities Together and The Door, two organizations that provide services to immigrants. The groups were represented by the New York Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union, Make the Road New York and Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel.
The organizations filed the lawsuit in August 2025, challenging both ICE’s courthouse arrest policy and a separate Executive Office for Immigration Review policy governing the dismissal of immigration proceedings.
According to Castel’s 36-page opinion, the plaintiffs argued that the policies operated together: An immigration proceeding could be dismissed, followed by the person’s immediate arrest at or near the courthouse and placement into an alternative, expedited removal process.
The case took a significant turn after the Justice Department acknowledged that information it had provided to the court while defending ICE’s courthouse arrests was incorrect.
In March, Justice Department attorneys told Castel that a 2025 ICE memorandum the government had repeatedly cited to defend courthouse arrests did not actually apply to immigration courts.
The government had previously represented to the court that the memorandum governed ICE arrests at immigration courthouses. But the Justice Department later acknowledged that the guidance “does not and has never applied” to civil immigration enforcement actions in or near immigration courts, NPR reported.
“We deeply regret this error,” Justice Department attorneys said in a letter to Castel, according to NPR.
The Justice Department said its attorneys had been informed by ICE that the guidance applied to immigration courthouse arrests and had consulted with ICE counsel before making representations to the court.
Despite the admission, the Department of Homeland Security maintained at the time that ICE would continue making courthouse arrests under other authority.
The disclosure changed the course of the litigation. Castel noted in his final opinion that the government had previously relied on representations concerning the memorandum and that, after the government abruptly changed its position, the court stayed the 2025 courthouse arrest policy.
The Administrative Procedure Act allows courts to review federal agency actions and set aside policies found to be arbitrary, capricious or otherwise contrary to law. The law requires agencies to engage in reasoned decision-making when changing policy rather than simply abandoning existing protections without adequately explaining the change.
Castel concluded that ICE had failed to provide an adequate justification for abandoning the restrictions contained in its earlier courthouse enforcement policy.
The court also noted that federal agencies have historically imposed restrictions on enforcement activities in sensitive locations, including schools, religious institutions and medical facilities.
The decision effectively restores safeguards intended to allow immigrants to participate in their legal proceedings without facing routine civil immigration arrests simply because they appeared at the courthouse.
“People should not be arrested for doing exactly what the legal system requires of them,” Oscar Sarabia Roman, an attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said in an NYCLU statement. “They should be able to come to court, take part in their cases, and leave without fear.”
Katie Rosenfeld, an attorney with Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel, said the policy created a fundamental conflict for people ordered to appear in immigration court.
“Immigrant New Yorkers should not have to choose between attending a required immigration hearing and risking detention, or staying away and risking a deportation order for failing to appear,” Rosenfeld said.
“This ruling restores important safeguards and makes clear that ICE cannot abandon those protections without a reasoned explanation,” she added. “Due process requires a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and that means people must be able to come to court without fear.”
The New York decision follows a similar nationwide ruling issued in June by U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts of the Northern District of California in Pablo Sequen v. Albarran.
Pitts similarly found that the administration’s courthouse arrest policies were arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act and vacated the policies nationwide.
In that case, the court found that the government had failed to establish a meaningful connection between its stated reasons for changing the policy and the expansion of arrests at immigration courthouses. The ruling restored previous restrictions barring courthouse arrests except in rare circumstances.
The California court also rejected the government’s request to geographically limit the remedy, concluding that when a nationwide agency policy is set aside under the Administrative Procedure Act, the relief applies nationwide.
Harold Solis, co-legal director at Make the Road New York, said enforcement of the latest ruling will now become critical.
“Today marks a turning point, and our focus now shifts to doing everything in our power to ensure the government fully complies with the court’s decision,” Solis said.
Castel’s final order is effective immediately, adding a second federal ruling rejecting a policy that allowed ICE to turn required appearances in the immigration court system into opportunities for arrest.
To comment please go to one of these social media platforms:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DavisVanguard
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/peoples-vanguard-of-davis-inc/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/davisvanguard/
X: https://x.com/davisvanguard
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/vanguardnewsgroup.bsky.social
Subscribe to the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
