A federal judge on Friday allowed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to continue making courthouse arrests in New York City, rejecting a legal challenge from the American Civil Liberties Union and several immigrant rights organizations, while striking down a separate Department of Justice policy that encouraged immigration judges to dismiss cases so migrants could be taken into custody immediately after hearings.
U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel, a George W. Bush appointee, found plaintiffs had not shown ICE’s recent revisions to its courthouse-arrest guidance were “unexplained, arbitrary and capricious.” Castel noted the agency’s 2025 guidance was broader than earlier 2021 guidance — which already allowed arrests at or near immigration courts — and that the policy changes were made in part because local jails and correctional facilities that traditionally receive detainees are often unavailable due to state and local restrictions on immigration detainers.
The ruling came amid heightened controversy over the administration’s enforcement tactics. The Justice Department policy Castel blocked had advised immigration judges to dismiss certain cases so ICE could arrest migrants immediately following asylum hearings — a tactic the administration deployed beginning in June. Critics argued the practice would deter migrants from showing up to court and risked removing people before full adjudication of their claims.
Dozens of immigrants were detained by ICE agents inside the Federal Plaza courthouse in Manhattan after legal proceedings in several widely circulated incidents, and video of some arrests spread rapidly on social media. Advocates described the arrests as undermining due process and said they had a chilling effect on community members seeking legal protection. "In its fervor to expel as many immigrants as possible from the country, the administration is targeting immigrants in the very place set up to adjudicate their status," said Diana Konaté, deputy executive director of policy and advocacy at African Communities Together, in a statement published by the ACLU. "Every day, our members are forced to choose between being kidnapped and/or put into expedited removal, or risking deeper legal consequences because they're too scared to go to court."
Department of Homeland Security officials have pointed to security concerns and instances of violence that have complicated courthouse operations. DHS previously reported that a knife-wielding protester in a keffiyeh ambushed ICE agents at a San Francisco courthouse, an incident officials have cited in defense of expanded enforcement options and heightened protective measures for agents.
Castel’s decision acknowledged the competing considerations at play: the statutory and regulatory authority under which ICE operates, the agency's changing operational needs, and the public-safety and due-process concerns raised by advocates and some court observers. While permitting the agency to continue arrests at or near immigration court facilities in New York City, the judge found insufficient record evidence to invalidate the 2025 guidance under the Administrative Procedure Act.
At the same time, Castel curtailed a parallel enforcement tool by setting aside the DOJ directive that had encouraged dismissals to facilitate immediate post-hearing arrests. The ruling means immigration judges cannot be directed to routinely dismiss cases for that purpose, though ICE retains authority to effectuate arrests consistent with lawful guidance and procedures.
The enforcement push has produced friction in courts and local jurisdictions. Some judges have been accused of taking steps to help migrants avoid arrest after hearings, and one Milwaukee judge, Hannah Dugan, was indicted in May on federal charges after prosecutors allege she instructed a migrant to exit through a private route as ICE was serving a warrant. Local and state governments have also moved to restrict the use of their facilities for immigration detention; courts have ruled on challenges to such bans and policies in different jurisdictions.
Immigrant-rights groups said they are reviewing the decision and will determine next steps, including possible appeals. ICE and the Department of Justice did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The ruling leaves in place a disputed tool in the federal immigration enforcement toolkit while narrowing a practice advocates said improperly enlisted immigration judges to aid enforcement efforts. It highlights ongoing legal and policy battles over how and where federal immigration enforcement may be carried out amid divergent views among courts, local governments and advocacy organizations about public safety, courtroom integrity and access to due process.