Federal Judge Blocks ICE Arrests at Manhattan Immigration Courts
A federal judge in New York has ruled that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents can no longer make arrests inside or around three Manhattan immigration courthouses except in exceptional circumstances, delivering a significant legal setback to the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement tactics. The decision by U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel on Monday halts a practice that had turned mandatory court appearances into arrest operations, sparking protests and raising due process concerns.
The Ruling
Judge Castel’s order applies to immigration courts at 26 Federal Plaza, 201 Varick Street, and 290 Broadway in Manhattan. According to NBC News, the ruling does not apply nationwide but reinstates the boundaries set by a 2021 Biden-era ICE policy that restricted courthouse arrests while a broader lawsuit proceeds.
Federal agents can still detain individuals away from courthouses and may make arrests at immigration courts when there are serious threats to public safety, national security concerns, imminent violence, hot pursuit situations, or threats to criminal evidence.
A Reversal Driven by Government Error
The ruling marks a dramatic reversal from Castel’s September 2025 decision, when he declined to ban the practice. The turning point came in March 2026, when Justice Department lawyers admitted they had made a “material mistaken statement of fact” to the court. The Associated Press reported that the DOJ conceded a May 2025 ICE memo they had cited to defend courthouse arrests “does not and has never applied” to immigration courts.
In his written decision, Castel said the government’s new position made it necessary to “correct a clear error and prevent a manifest injustice.” He also found that the Trump administration’s withdrawal of the 2021 policy was likely “arbitrary and capricious” because officials failed to adequately explain how the new guidance applied to immigration courts specifically.
Background: From Policy to Protest
The practice of arresting immigrants at courthouses escalated sharply after President Donald Trump took office in January 2025. According to The Guardian, ICE agents detained dozens of immigrants inside the Federal Plaza courthouse in June 2025, leading to dramatic scenes in courthouse hallways as individuals were pulled away from emotional family members.
In January 2026, agents detained migrants after court hearings at the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building, drawing further protests. The confrontations became part of a broader national debate over immigration enforcement tactics, with highly publicized tensions also erupting in Los Angeles and Minneapolis.
Legal Challenge and Advocacy Response
The lawsuit was brought by the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Make the Road NY, African Communities Together, and The Door. The DOJ’s admission of error was particularly striking — lawyers acknowledged they were “informed by ICE that the 2025 ICE Guidance applied to immigration courthouse arrests” and had “discussed with and obtained the approval of assigned ICE counsel before filing every brief in this case.”
Amy Belsher, director of the NYCLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Litigation, called the ruling “an enormous win for noncitizen New Yorkers seeking to safely attend their immigration court proceedings.” She added that “people can now go to immigration court with the understanding that they won’t be arrested there.”
Beth Baltimore, deputy director of The Door’s Legal Services Center, said the decision “brings us hope” and noted that staff “continue to work tirelessly to support Door members who were terrified to go to their required court appearances.”
Government Response
The Department of Homeland Security pushed back sharply, stating: “It is common sense to take illegal aliens into custody following the completion of their removal proceedings. Nothing prohibits arresting a lawbreaker where you find them. We are confident we will ultimately be vindicated in this case.”
Broader Implications
The ruling arrives amid heightened immigration enforcement under the second Trump administration and with midterm elections approaching in fall 2026. Polling by the Marist Poll in February 2026 found that most Americans believed immigration agents had gone too far with their tactics.
Legal experts say the case underscores the judiciary’s role in checking executive branch overreach, particularly when government attorneys make inaccurate representations to the court. The finding that the administration’s policy withdrawal was likely arbitrary and capricious could have implications for other challenges to Trump-era regulatory changes.
What’s Next
The ruling does not apply to immigration courts outside Manhattan, creating a geographic disparity in enforcement. The DHS statement vowing to continue arrests elsewhere signals the administration’s intent to challenge the decision. It remains unclear whether the government will appeal Castel’s ruling or how the decision will affect individuals already detained under the now-discredited policy.
As the broader lawsuit proceeds, the case raises fundamental questions about the independence of immigration courts and the limits of enforcement power within the judicial system.