Search Articles
MANHATTAN (CN) — A federal judge on Friday ruled that federal agents can continue arresting people outside of immigration courthouses, rejecting a broad challenge to the controversial Trump administration practice brought by a pair of immigrant rights groups.
In a 47-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Kevin Castel found that the groups failed to show that they are “likely to prevail in demonstrating that the 2025 ICE courthouse arrest policies are unexplained, arbitrary and capricious changes in agency policy.”
Immigration and Customs Enforcement long avoided arrests near immigration courts to avoid discouraging attendance. That changed in 2025, when the Trump administration encouraged the practice — a move immigration groups African Communities Together and The Door call unlawful.
“Enforcement activities in or near courthouses are often required when jurisdictions refuse to cooperate with ICE, including when such jurisdictions refuse to honor immigration detainers and transfer aliens directly to ICE custody,” acting ICE director Todd Lyons wrote in a May memo.
On Friday, Castel ruled that the memo properly outlined its reasoning for the policy change, shutting down the groups’ claims that the new rule is arbitrary and capricious.
“The agency stated its reason that courthouses were safe places to effectuate arrests because of security screening,” the George W. Bush appointee wrote. “It also explained that an alternative safe place to make an arrest, a correctional facility or prison, was not available to it because of state and local policies regarding immigration detainers. Implicitly, the agency asserted its belief that its new policy was better.”
But Castel did deliver the groups a win on another front — he made it more difficult for immigration judges to dismiss cases from the bench.
In their August lawsuit, the groups scrutinized a Trump administration email encouraging immigration judges to quickly dismiss cases from the bench to reduce caseload. That policy, the groups claim, “departs from internal agency rules and regulations grounded in core procedural due process protections without any reasoned explanation for doing so.”
Castel agreed that the policy “is in conflict” with federal policy, which notes that a dismissal is permitted when the “[c]ircumstances of the case have changed … to such an extent that continuation is no longer in the best interest of the government.”
“Neither the increase in the detained caseload nor the implementation of the ICE Courthouse Arrests Policies represent a change in the circumstances of a case,” Castel wrote, ordering the practice to be temporarily paused in Bronx and Manhattan immigration courts.
It’s unclear how much the block will affect immigration court arrests in those counties. Federal attorneys say the email outlining the policy isn’t binding and note ICE has made many arrests at New York City courthouses without their cases being dismissed.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, told Courthouse News on Friday that it will likely mean “probably not very much” change in the number of noncitizens arrested at city courts.
Still, he said it’s a limited victory for immigrants citywide.
“The decision vindicates arguments that immigration judges have been pressured to dismiss cases rapidly with the goal of putting people into expediting removal,” Reichlin-Melnick said. “Immigration judges will now have to make individualized decisions rather than, as the email suggested, dismiss cases for general case management reasons.”
In a statement to Courthouse News, attorney for the plaintiffs Amy Belsher said Friday’s order “rightly affirms that the Trump administration violated the law by directing immigration judges to deny noncitizens their day in court so that ICE can fast-track their deportation.”
“While this is a step in the right direction, we will keep fighting to end the Trump administration’s lawless policy of arresting people attending mandatory court hearings. No one should be punished for following the law, or subject to such unlawful and unfair tactics.”
Representatives for ICE and the Justice Department didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.
The two immigrant rights groups filed their lawsuit in the Southern District of New York, with the American Civil Liberties Union representing them. They seek to stop the pattern of immigration judges dismissing cases, only for noncitizens to be arrested as they leave court.
“Such arrests could deter noncitizens from attending mandatory court proceedings and disrupt the proper functioning of courts and fair administration of justice,” the groups claim in their lawsuit.
Castel’s Friday ruling was a preliminary injunction, which will only be enforced for the remainder of the proceedings. The plaintiff groups can still win a permanent stop to immigration court arrests at trial.
Follow @Uebey
Follow @uebey.bsky.socialSubscribe to our free newsletters
Our weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.