A federal judge issued a temporary order Monday preventing Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers from conducting civil arrests at several Manhattan immigration courthouses. The ruling came after Department of Justice attorneys acknowledged making false statements to the court while defending the Trump administration’s enforcement policy. U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel directed ICE to return to more restrictive Biden-era guidelines on courthouse arrests while litigation continues.
The decision represents a dramatic shift from Castel’s earlier 2025 ruling that declined to halt the policy. Justice Department lawyers informed the court in March 2025 that they needed to correct previous testimony about a May 2025 ICE memo on courthouse enforcement. Government attorneys later admitted the guidance document never applied to immigration courts, contradicting their earlier assertions.
Court reverses position after government admits material error
Judge Castel stated the government’s reversal warranted revisiting his earlier decision. The judge emphasized the need to correct a clear error and prevent manifest injustice. The admission by DOJ lawyers undermined the factual basis on which the court had previously declined to intervene. Castel found the government’s acknowledgment of misstatements significant enough to reconsider the entire preliminary injunction analysis.
Immigration advocacy organizations that filed the lawsuit argued the Trump administration’s policies transformed mandatory court appearances into arrest operations. According to the plaintiffs, migrants attending required immigration hearings faced immediate detention by ICE agents immediately after proceedings concluded. The groups contended this practice discouraged immigrants from appearing for legally mandated hearings, undermining the immigration court system itself.
Judge finds administration likely violated administrative law
In his written opinion, Castel indicated the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that the administration acted arbitrarily. The judge determined the Trump administration failed to adequately explain how its new enforcement policy applied to immigration courts when it rescinded the 2021 ICE directive. Under administrative law principles, federal agencies must provide reasoned explanations when reversing established policies.
The 2021 policy under the Biden administration had imposed significant restrictions on ICE arrests at courthouses. That directive required agents to obtain supervisory approval before conducting enforcement actions at or near courthouses. The policy aimed to ensure immigrants could safely access judicial proceedings without fear of immediate arrest. When the Trump administration reversed the policy, it did not address how the change would affect immigration court operations specifically.
Enforcement exceptions remain for security threats
Judge Castel clarified that his ruling does not create a blanket prohibition on all courthouse arrests. ICE officers may still conduct enforcement operations under specific circumstances. The exceptions include cases involving national security threats, situations with imminent risk of violence, hot pursuit scenarios, and instances where criminal evidence faces destruction. These carve-outs allow law enforcement to respond to genuine security concerns while limiting routine civil immigration arrests.
- National security threat cases remain eligible for immediate ICE action at courthouses.
- Situations involving imminent violence allow enforcement operations to proceed.
- Hot pursuit scenarios permit officers to continue arrests into courthouse premises.
- Cases where criminal evidence faces tampering or destruction qualify for exemption.
The ruling applies specifically to several Manhattan immigration courthouses where the plaintiffs demonstrated enforcement actions had occurred. ICE must now obtain advance approval under the Biden-era guidelines before conducting most civil immigration arrests at these facilities. The temporary order remains in effect while the broader lawsuit proceeds through the court system.
Immigrant rights groups celebrate temporary victory
Amy Belsher, director of immigrants’ rights litigation at the New York Civil Liberties Union, called the ruling an enormous win. Belsher stated the decision would allow noncitizen New Yorkers to safely attend immigration court proceedings without fear of arrest. The NYCLU was among the advocacy organizations that brought the lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s courthouse enforcement policy.
The case highlights the tension between immigration enforcement priorities and access to judicial proceedings. Immigration courts handle removal proceedings, asylum applications, and other matters requiring the physical presence of immigrants. When individuals fear arrest upon entering courthouses, they may fail to appear, resulting in automatic removal orders. Advocacy groups argue this outcome undermines due process rights and prevents immigrants from presenting defenses to deportation.
Federal agencies decline immediate comment on ruling
The Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the ruling. Both agencies fall under the executive branch and typically defend administration immigration policies in court. The Justice Department represents the government in litigation but acknowledged the factual errors that led to Judge Castel’s reversal. The agencies will likely need to decide whether to appeal the preliminary injunction or develop new guidance that addresses the court’s concerns about arbitrary policy changes.
The case remains in active litigation, with the preliminary injunction representing a temporary measure pending final resolution. Judge Castel will eventually need to rule on the merits of whether the Trump administration’s policy reversal violated administrative law. The government may also revise its courthouse enforcement guidance to provide the reasoned explanation the court found lacking. For now, ICE officers working in Manhattan immigration courts must follow the more restrictive Biden-era protocols that require supervisory approval for most arrests.