Federal Judge in Manhattan Vacates Trump-Era Policy Allowing ICE Arrests at Immigration Courthouses

# What the ruling does

# Why the court acted Judge P. Kevin Castel found the 2025 policy unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act. In a 36-page opinion he concluded federal officials acted "arbitrary and capricious" by broadly permitting arrests without offering guidance or explaining why unrestricted discretion was preferable to the prior policy that made such arrests rare.

The decision follows a May temporary stay that had already mostly paused courthouse arrests in New York and comes after a similar outcome in federal court in California. The ruling also followed a highly unusual development in which government attorneys disclosed that an ICE memo used to justify the arrests did not, in fact, apply to immigration courthouses—an error the government said it intended to correct.

# How advocates and the government framed the issue

The government has previously defended courthouse arrests as a safer, more controlled alternative to street arrests, noting that security screening at federal courthouses can reduce risks during takedowns. A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment about Castel's ruling.

# Legal and procedural context Castel's opinion addressed the scope of judicial remedies under administrative-law review. He acknowledged a 2025 Supreme Court ruling limiting district courts' authority to issue nationwide injunctions and noted the concern that vacating an agency action could raise similar issues. Still, he said he was bound by Second Circuit precedent allowing judges to vacate unlawful agency actions rather than merely issue injunctive relief.

# Immediate effects and next steps The ruling indefinitely extends the May stay that mostly halted courthouse arrests in New York and effectively limits ICE officers' ability to conduct routine, warrantless arrests inside immigration courthouses nationwide as applied by this court. The case is part of a string of recent judicial decisions curbing expansive ICE practices in New York and elsewhere, including rulings addressing detention conditions and limits on warrantless arrests in other federal districts.

Plaintiff attorneys hailed the ruling as a significant protection for noncitizens seeking to attend immigration proceedings. The Department of Homeland Security has not issued a public response to this specific opinion as of the report.

# Bottom line The court ruled that the 2025 policy allowing broad courthouse arrests was implemented without adequate explanation or guidance, and therefore violated administrative procedure law. The ruling restores prior, more limited practices for courthouse arrests and pauses part of the Trump administration's enforcement approach at immigration courts.