Judge Halts Most ICE Arrests in Courts

U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel on May 18 temporarily barred Immigration and Customs Enforcement from carrying out most civil arrests in and around three Manhattan immigration courts while a federal lawsuit moves forward. The order covers 26 Federal Plaza, 201 Varick Street and 290 Broadway, the main New York City sites where immigration hearings are held. Castel said the government’s own March 24 filing — which withdrew earlier representations about what ICE policy covered — required him to revisit a 2025 ruling that had allowed the practice to continue. The decision does not stop all arrests, but it restores tighter limits while the case is litigated. ### What exactly did the judge block? Monday’s order bars ICE from making routine civil immigration arrests in or near those three Manhattan immigration court buildings. Castel said arrests can still occur in limited situations, including what coverage of the order described as exceptional or enumerated circumstances, such as an imminent threat of death, violence or physical harm. (cbsnews.com) The ruling is narrower than a nationwide injunction. CBS News and Bloomberg Law reported that it applies only to the New York City immigration courts at 26 Federal Plaza, 201 Varick Street and 290 Broadway, plus 201 Varick Street, while the underlying lawsuit continues in the Southern District of New York. (cbsnews.com) ### Why did Castel reverse his earlier position? A March 24, 2026 letter from federal prosecutors told the court they were correcting a “material mistaken statement of fact” made in earlier briefing. According to Castel’s order, government lawyers said ICE had informed them that a May 27, 2025 memorandum the government had relied on “does not and has never applied” to civil immigration enforcement actions in or near immigration courts. (cbsnews.com) Castel wrote that the government’s new position warranted reexamination of his September 2025 order. Bloomberg Law reported that he said the revision was needed to “correct a clear error and prevent a manifest injustice,” and that plaintiffs should be allowed to renew arguments that had been rejected when the court understood the 2025 ICE courthouse policy to apply to immigration courts. (courthousenews.com) ### Who brought the case? African Communities Together and The Door, two New York nonprofit groups, are the plaintiffs in the case. The lawsuit challenges 2025 Trump administration guidance that broadened the circumstances for civil immigration arrests in or near courthouses, and it also challenged a related Executive Office for Immigration Review directive on dismissing removal proceedings. (news.bloomberglaw.com) The New York Civil Liberties Union, the American Civil Liberties Union, Make the Road New York and private counsel are representing the groups. Castel said only The Door had standing to seek the stay, according to Bloomberg Law’s account of the ruling, but the case itself continues under the caption African Communities Together v. Lyons. (news.bloomberglaw.com) ### What were advocates and the government saying? Amy Belsher of the New York Civil Liberties Union called the ruling “an enormous win for noncitizen New Yorkers seeking to safely attend their immigration court proceedings,” according to CBS News. Harold Solis of Make the Road said “countless immigrant New Yorkers” had been arrested for attending hearings at 26 Federal Plaza and said the earlier denial of relief had rested on what the government later acknowledged was false information. (news.bloomberglaw.com) The Department of Homeland Security defended the practice. In statements reported by CBS News and Documented, the department said it was “common sense” to take people into custody after removal proceedings and said, “We are confident we will ultimately be vindicated in this case.” ### Did arrests stop immediately? (cbsnews.com) A May 20 Associated Press report said a man was arrested one day after Castel’s order, underscoring that the dispute over the order’s scope did not end with the ruling. Separate reports from CBS News and USA Today said federal officials argued at least one subsequent arrest fell within what they viewed as a lawful exception. (cbsnews.com) That means the practical effect of the order may still be tested in court filings and on the ground at the three Manhattan sites. The next concrete step is the ongoing federal case in the Southern District of New York, where the stay remains in place as the challenge to ICE’s 2025 courthouse-arrest policies proceeds. (news.bloomberglaw.com) (apnews.com)