Judge Blocks Most ICE Arrests at Manhattan Courts

U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel on May 18 temporarily blocked most Immigration and Customs Enforcement civil arrests at three Manhattan immigration courts, reversing an earlier ruling that had allowed the practice to continue. The order applies to 26 Federal Plaza, 201 Varick Street and 290 Broadway, the main Lower Manhattan buildings where immigration proceedings are held. Castel said the government’s recent acknowledgment that it had wrongly relied on a 2025 courthouse-arrest policy required the court to revisit its earlier decision. The case is African Communities Together v. Lyons, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. ### Which arrests did Judge Castel stop? The May 18 order bars ICE from making civil immigration arrests in or near those three Manhattan immigration courts except in narrow circumstances. Those exceptions include situations involving an “imminent risk of death, violence or physical harm,” according to reporting that summarized the 15-page ruling. Castel also said federal agents could still make arrests away from immigration courts. (documentedny.com) Three addresses are central to the ruling: 26 Federal Plaza, 201 Varick Street and 290 Broadway. Those buildings have been the focus of a surge in courthouse arrests in New York City since 2025. ### Why did the judge reverse himself? Federal prosecutors told Castel in March that the government had made a “material mistaken statement of fact” when it previously argued that a May 2025 ICE guidance memo authorized arrests at immigration courts. (documentedny.com) The government later conceded that the memo “does not and never has” applied to immigration courts, only to other courthouses, according to court reporting. (courthousenews.com) Castel wrote that the concession warranted reexamination of his prior ruling “to correct a clear error and prevent a manifest injustice,” according to multiple accounts of the order. In his new decision, he said there was a strong government interest in enforcing immigration law, but also a serious interest in allowing people to attend removal proceedings and pursue asylum claims without fear of arrest. (courthousenews.com) ### Who brought the lawsuit? African Communities Together and The Door filed the underlying lawsuit in August 2025. They were represented by the New York Civil Liberties Union, the American Civil Liberties Union, Make the Road New York and Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel LLP, according to the ACLU and court records. (courthousenews.com) The plaintiffs argued that arrests at mandatory immigration hearings turned court appearances into traps and discouraged people from showing up for proceedings. Beth Baltimore of The Door said in the 2025 filing that teens and young adults served by the group were afraid to attend hearings because of possible detention. Diana Konaté of African Communities Together said members were being forced to choose between attending court and risking arrest. (aclu.org) ### What did advocates and the government say after the ruling? Amy Belsher, director of the NYCLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Litigation Project, called the decision “an enormous win for noncitizen New Yorkers seeking to safely attend their immigration court proceedings,” according to CBS News’ account of the ruling. Harold Solis of Make the Road New York said the court had acted after the government acknowledged that earlier information was false. (aclu.org) The Department of Homeland Security said in a statement that it was “common sense” to take people into custody after removal proceedings and said it was confident it would “ultimately be vindicated.” Justice Department lawyers declined comment to CBS, while Documented reported that ICE and the Justice Department did not immediately respond to its requests. (cbsnews.com) ### What happens next in the case? The lawsuit remains pending before Castel in the Southern District of New York. Bloomberg Law reported that the suit challenges interim and final Trump administration guidance issued in 2025 that broadened the circumstances for civil immigration arrests in or near courthouses and rolled back Biden-era restrictions. (cbsnews.com) On May 19, one day after the ruling, the Associated Press reported that ICE agents detained a man at a New York immigration hearing, underscoring that the litigation and enforcement fight were continuing. Any appeal of Castel’s order would go to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. (apnews.com) (news.bloomberglaw.com)