Federal judge orders access protections at 2 New York immigration courts
A federal judge has ordered officials to protect public access to eligible in-person immigration hearings at two New York City courts, including the ordinary public routes visitors use to reach those proceedings.
U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon signed the preliminary injunction on July 21, 2026, and made it effective immediately. It covers the Executive Office for Immigration Review courts at 26 Federal Plaza and 290 Broadway in Manhattan.
What the injunction requires
The order protects access to “covered hearings”: in-person immigration hearings at either court that are required to be open to the public and have not been lawfully closed or subjected to a lawful attendance limit.
Officials may not categorically or unjustifiably exclude observers from those proceedings. They also may not use building-access practices that prevent visitors from reaching a covered hearing without a lawful basis.
The protected route includes the ordinary public entrance, security screening area, elevator or stairway, and public hallways or corridors needed to reach covered courtrooms or EOIR public waiting areas. It does not include restricted offices, detention or holding areas, staff-only routes or other secure spaces.
The order defines the covered courts narrowly. It does not include the immigration court at 201 Varick Street or any other location, and it is not a nationwide injunction.
Not every hearing is open
The injunction does not make every immigration proceeding open to every visitor. The order preserves lawful hearing closures and attendance limits, including limits based on facility capacity, protection of a witness or party, the public interest, courtroom order, confidentiality or sealed information.
Regulatory exceptions also cover certain proceedings involving abused spouses or children and evidentiary hearings on asylum or withholding of removal when the respondent expressly requests closure.
In practical terms, observers generally should be allowed to attend covered hearings at the two Manhattan courts, but they must follow building screening, capacity rules, confidentiality requirements and courtroom instructions. The order does not guarantee access to every hearing.
Why the judge found a First Amendment basis
In a separate June 22 opinion, McMahon concluded that ordinary removal hearings are “trial-type administrative adjudications” and that public access to ordinary, non-closed hearings is protected by a qualified First Amendment right.
The opinion applied the experience-and-logic framework used in public-access cases. The judge pointed to the hearings’ adversarial structure, the immigration judge’s authority to receive evidence and regulate proceedings, the formal record, and the public-access rules that generally make immigration hearings open.
The court said public observation can promote fairness, regularity, accountability and confidence in the administration of immigration law. Because the protection is qualified, it can yield to an overriding interest supported by a lawful and appropriately tailored closure or restriction.
The June opinion supplied the legal reasoning. The July 21 order established the operative terms of the injunction. The two documents are separate, and the July order is preliminary relief rather than a final judgment on the merits.
What the order does not do
The injunction does not bar lawful immigration arrests, detention, transport or removal operations. It also does not prevent officials from enforcing building-security rules, addressing disruptions or lawfully limiting access to a particular proceeding.
Immigration courts are part of the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review. They conduct administrative proceedings, rather than proceedings before federal Article III judges. The ruling therefore does not establish a nationwide rule governing every immigration court.
The June opinion dismissed claims against ICE and a senior ICE official for lack of standing, without prejudice. The July order separately states that lawful law-enforcement activity remains protected.
The case followed plaintiffs’ allegations about locked courtroom doors, exclusions from public areas and intimidating enforcement-related conditions. In addressing dismissal issues, the court treated well-pleaded allegations as true; those allegations should not be presented as final findings that resolve the case.
Practical guidance for visitors
People planning to observe a hearing, accompany a respondent or gather information should check the official EOIR court page and current operating information before traveling. The Federal Plaza court page lists the court at 26 Federal Plaza, gives public hours and says visitors must use the building’s main entrance and undergo security screening.
EOIR’s court-search tools and Immigration Court Online Resource provide general information about court locations, case-related resources, internet-based hearings and operational status. EOIR says its online material is general information and is not legal advice.
Visitors should confirm the hearing’s status and any court-specific entry instructions with EOIR. The injunction concerns access through ordinary public routes to covered courtrooms and public waiting areas; it does not create access to restricted parts of a federal building or guarantee that a proceeding will remain open.
What happens next
The injunction remains in effect until final judgment or further order from the Southern District of New York. It could be appealed, narrowed, modified or replaced as the case proceeds.
For now, the ruling creates a court-ordered access protection at two Manhattan immigration courts while leaving lawful closures, capacity limits, confidentiality rules, security procedures and enforcement authority in place.
Sources
Discover more from Interactive News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
