A federal judge banned most ICE arrests at three Manhattan immigration courts on May 19, ruling that the Trump administration’s courthouse arrest policy was likely “arbitrary and capricious” and violated immigrants’ right to appear before a judge without fear.
What the Judge Decided
On Monday, May 19, 2026, US District Judge P. Kevin Castel issued a ruling banning most arrests by federal agents in and around three Manhattan buildings where immigration proceedings take place: 26 Federal Plaza, 201 Varick Street, and 290 Broadway.
The ruling puts an immediate stop to a practice that had become a defining feature of Trump’s second-term immigration enforcement, one where ICE agents in plainclothes would wait at courthouse entrances or inside hallways and arrest people who had come to comply with their legal obligation to appear before an immigration judge.
Castel acknowledged that “there is a strong governmental interest in enforcing immigration laws,” but held that there is also a serious interest in allowing individuals to “attend removal proceedings and pursue asylum claims before a judge without fear of arrest.” Those two interests cannot coexist if people are being seized in the act of obeying the law.
The judge found that the Trump administration’s withdrawal of longstanding courthouse protection policies, which had been in place for five years, was likely “arbitrary and capricious” under federal administrative law and that the case before him was likely to result in a finding against the government.
How the Policy Came About, and What It Did
For years, a federal policy protected people attending immigration court proceedings from arrest at courthouses. The rationale was straightforward: if people fear being arrested the moment they walk into a courthouse, they will stop coming. And if they stop coming, the immigration court system cannot function.
The Trump administration withdrew those protections, and agents began making arrests at immigration courts as a matter of routine. The scenes that followed were dramatic and, in many cases, recorded on video: people being pulled away from crying family members in courthouse hallways, plainclothes officers surrounding individuals who had done nothing except show up when the law required them to.
A Dominican man and an activist were photographed being detained by plainclothes ICE officers right outside the Javits Federal Building in Manhattan after an immigration hearing in June 2025. That image became a symbol of the policy’s reach.
The lawsuit was brought by the New York Civil Liberties Union, the American Civil Liberties Union, Make the Road NY, and other organizations on behalf of African Communities Together and The Door, an organization that serves immigrant youth in New York.
What Changed the Judge’s Mind
Judge Castel had actually declined to ban the practice last year. What changed was the government’s own legal position.
During recent proceedings, government lawyers acknowledged that 2025 policies set by the Trump administration regarding arrests in and around courthouses did not, in fact, apply to immigration courts. In other words, the government’s own lawyers told the court that the policy ICE had been enforcing at immigration courthouses was not actually authorized by the rules ICE claimed to be following.
That admission was enough for the judge. He wrote that it was necessary to “correct a clear error and prevent a manifest injustice.”
The Department of Homeland Security responded with characteristic confidence: “It is common sense to take illegal aliens into custody following the completion of their removal proceedings. Nothing prohibits arresting a lawbreaker where you find them. We are confident we will ultimately be vindicated in this case.”
What the Ruling Does and Does Not Do
It is important to be clear about the scope of this ruling. It applies only to three courthouses in Manhattan. It does not apply nationwide. ICE can still make arrests at immigration courts in Houston, El Paso, San Antonio, or anywhere else in Texas.
What the ruling does preserve, within its geographic scope, is the ability of people with pending cases to appear before a judge without being seized on the way in or out. Federal agents can still detain individuals away from courthouse locations. They can still make arrests at courthouses when there are serious threats to public safety. The ruling narrows, but does not eliminate, enforcement authority near immigration courts.
The broader legal significance is in the reasoning, not just the outcome. A federal judge has now put on the record that withdrawing courthouse protection policies was likely arbitrary and unlawful, that the government’s own lawyers undermined its position with their admission, and that immigrants have a cognizable interest in being able to attend their own legal proceedings.
That reasoning does not disappear when it crosses a state line.
Why This Matters in Texas
Texas is one of the states where courthouse arrests have had the most pronounced impact. Houston, San Antonio, and Dallas all have active immigration courts with high caseloads. Attorneys across Texas have documented clients who failed to appear for hearings, not because they were evading the law, but because they were afraid that appearing would result in their immediate arrest.
When people stop appearing, immigration judges issue in absentia removal orders. Those orders can be extraordinarily difficult to reopen, and they can follow someone for the rest of their life. The courthouse arrest practice has effectively pushed people toward removal orders they might never have received had they been able to attend their hearings safely.
If you or someone you know has missed a hearing because of fear of courthouse arrest, that situation may be addressable through a motion to reopen. It is not too late in all cases, but waiting makes it harder.
What You Should Know If You Have a Hearing
If you have an upcoming immigration court date, here is what you need to know in the current environment.
You are legally required to appear at your hearings. Failing to appear results in an in absentia removal order, which is far more difficult to deal with than the hearing itself.
Having legal representation dramatically changes your situation. An attorney who appears with you can intervene immediately if ICE attempts to arrest you at or near the courthouse, document any unlawful conduct, and protect your legal interests on the spot.
The New York ruling is not law in Texas. But it reflects a growing body of federal court decisions pushing back on the administration’s most aggressive enforcement tactics. Courts are creating limits. Knowing those limits, and having someone in your corner who knows them too, matters.
Powers Law Group represents clients in immigration court proceedings across Texas, including people with pending asylum cases, removal hearings, and appeals. If you have a hearing coming up and are afraid of what will happen when you walk through those doors, contact us before you decide not to go.
Sources
- Larry Neumeister, Federal Judge Bans Most Arrests by Federal Agents in Immigration Courts in New York, Associated Press, May 19, 2026. https://www.apnews.com
- New York Civil Liberties Union, Statement on Courthouse Arrest Ruling, May 19, 2026. https://www.nyclu.org
- American Civil Liberties Union, Federal Court Blocks ICE Courthouse Arrests in Manhattan, May 19, 2026. https://www.aclu.org
- National Immigration Law Center, Courthouse Arrests and the Right to Appear in Immigration Court, 2025. https://www.nilc.org
- American Immigration Council, The Impact of Courthouse Arrests on Immigration Proceedings, 2025. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org
- TRAC Immigration, In Absentia Removal Orders: Trends and Causes, 2026. https://trac.syr.edu
- The New York Times, ICE Courthouse Arrests and the Collapse of Immigration Court Appearances, 2026. https://www.nytimes.com
- Human Rights Watch, Courthouse Arrests and Due Process in Immigration Cases, 2025. https://www.hrw.org
- Powers Law Group, A US Citizen Was Deported After a Traffic Stop. He Had the Documents to Prove It., April 2026. https://www.rubypowerslaw.com
- Powers Law Group, Four and a Half Months Detained. No Hearing. A Federal Court Said That Was Unconstitutional., May 2026. https://www.rubypowerslaw.com
