Federal courthouse-arrest ruling faces New York compliance test
A federal judge’s June 23, 2026 ruling vacated broad Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Executive Office for Immigration Review policies that enabled civil arrests at immigration courthouses nationwide. The decision is now being tested by a reported arrest in Manhattan and a separate order protecting public access to immigration hearings.
The legal changes do not mean every immigration-related arrest at or near a courthouse is automatically barred. The California ruling removed the challenged policy framework, while other legal authorities and court-recognized exceptions remain part of the dispute.
What the June 23 ruling changed
U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts of the Northern District of California found that ICE and EOIR had not adequately explained their reversal of a longstanding approach that discouraged arrests at immigration courts.
The court’s Administrative Procedure Act reasoning focused on the agencies’ failure to address the practical consequences of the policy change, including the risk that arrests at mandatory hearings would deter people from attending court. The Associated Press described the ruling as a nationwide invalidation of the policy and reported that Pitts found more than ordinary unreasoned decision-making: the agencies had not adequately explained the change at all.
That is different from a blanket order immunizing everyone who enters or leaves an immigration courthouse. The ruling vacated the challenged policies. It did not resolve every question about arrests supported by separate legal grounds, arrests away from court, or the circumstances under which an arrest could still be lawful.
Why New York remains a separate test
U.S. District Judge Kevin Castel separately limited arrests at three Manhattan immigration courts: 201 Varick Street, 290 Broadway and 26 Federal Plaza.
Castel’s order permits courthouse arrests only in narrow circumstances described in the order, including threats to national security or public safety, an imminent risk of violence, an imminent risk that evidence in a criminal case will be destroyed, or circumstances in which an alternative location is unavailable or unsafe or the arrest would be too difficult to carry out elsewhere.
The New York litigation also followed the government’s concession that an ICE guidance memo cited in earlier proceedings did not apply to immigration courts. Castel said that representation had affected his earlier decision to allow the practice, prompting him to reconsider the scope of permissible arrests.
The July 16 arrest created a compliance question
Courthouse News Service reported that ICE arrested Matar Ndiaye at 290 Broadway on July 16, after he attended a master calendar hearing in his asylum case. His habeas petition alleges that he had appeared at earlier hearings, received a future individual-hearing date and was detained without prior warning or a finding that he posed a flight risk or danger to the community.
Those claims are allegations in ongoing litigation, not adjudicated findings. Courthouse News reported that the Department of Homeland Security did not immediately provide a specific explanation for Ndiaye’s arrest. In earlier proceedings, the government argued that safety concerns about alternative arrest locations, including possible protests, could fit within Castel’s narrow exceptions.
Castel also sought an explanation for continued arrests at Manhattan immigration courts and asked the government to show how particular arrests satisfied the requirements of his order. That inquiry could determine whether the exceptions remain limited in practice or become the basis for repeated enforcement actions.
What the July 21 public-access order does
On July 21, 2026, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction in Arias v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement requiring public access to presumptively open, in-person immigration hearings at 26 Federal Plaza and 290 Broadway.
The order does not cover 201 Varick Street. It also does not prohibit lawful hearing closures, attendance limits, security measures or restrictions needed to protect witnesses, parties, confidential information or the public. The order preserves lawful arrests, detention, transport, removal and other legitimate law-enforcement activity.
What people with hearings should do
People with scheduled immigration hearings should continue to appear unless EOIR or the court officially changes the hearing. The nationwide ruling is not a reason to assume that a hearing has been canceled or that attendance is optional.
EOIR says court documents and hearing notices are the official source of information. People should verify hearing dates, locations and status through EOIR’s Automated Case Information System, the immigration court handling the case and any attorney or accredited representative involved. EOIR lists its case-information hotline as 800-898-7180.
What to watch next
The next major questions are whether the government appeals or seeks a stay of the June 23 ruling, how courts interpret the New York exceptions, whether the government provides the explanations Castel requested and whether additional courthouse arrests lead to new due-process challenges.
For now, the practical rule is narrower than either side’s broadest claims: the nationwide policies were vacated, New York has additional restrictions, and people with scheduled hearings should rely on official court notices rather than assume that enforcement or hearing requirements have disappeared.
Sources
- Associated Press nationwide courthouse-arrest ruling report
- Courthouse News report on Manhattan courthouse-arrest limits
- Arias preliminary-injunction order
- EOIR Immigration Court Information
Look for updates to this story
Discover more from Interactive News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.