Judge bars most federal arrests at Manhattan immigration courts

A federal judge in New York has sharply limited a tactic that turned immigration court appearances into a risk of arrest: federal agents can no longer make most arrests in and around three Manhattan buildings where immigration proceedings take place.

U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel said the government may still act in public-safety emergencies and may still detain people away from immigration courts. But he found that routine courthouse arrests undermined the basic purpose of removal hearings and asylum proceedings, where people are supposed to appear, defend themselves and seek relief under the law.

Castel framed the dispute as a clash between enforcement and access. He said the government has a strong interest in enforcing immigration law, but there is also a serious interest in allowing people to attend court without fear of arrest. That boundary, he concluded, matters because courthouse access is not just a logistical issue. It is part of whether the immigration system can function as a place for hearings rather than a trap.

The ruling came after government lawyers reversed course and told the court that a 2025 policy on courthouse arrests did not actually apply to immigration courts. Castel said that concession helped persuade him that the court needed to correct a clear error and prevent a manifest injustice. He allowed the longstanding policy boundaries to remain in place while the case continues.

The decision immediately drew support from the New York Civil Liberties Union, the American Civil Liberties Union and Make the Road NY, the groups that brought the lawsuit. Their challenge centered on a simple but consequential claim: if federal agents wait in hallways and make arrests indiscriminately, immigrants may stop showing up for hearings altogether.

That potential chilling effect is what gives the order broader significance beyond Manhattan. Castel’s ruling does not end immigration enforcement, but it reins in one of the most visible and controversial tactics used around immigration courts. It also forces the administration to defend where enforcement ends and courthouse due process begins, a line that could shape attendance, arrest strategy and the future reach of federal detention power inside the immigration system.