Federal judge vacates ICE courthouse-arrest policy and restores 2021 limits

The court found an unexplained policy reversal

U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel ruled that Immigration and Customs Enforcement acted arbitrarily and capriciously when its 2025 courthouse guidance rescinded a 2021 policy as applied to civil enforcement in or near immigration courts. The opinion says ICE did not acknowledge or give a reasoned explanation for replacing the earlier limits with broad officer discretion, and the government's summary-judgment briefs did not defend the policy against that Administrative Procedure Act challenge. [1][2]

The September 30 order set aside the January and May 2025 guidance only to the extent that it purported to rescind the April 2021 guidance for immigration courts. It therefore restores a framework that generally restricts civil immigration enforcement at courthouses but permits it in limited circumstances. The ruling is not a blanket prohibition on every courthouse arrest, and the court rejected a separate argument that federal immigration law incorporated a common-law privilege against arrest by the sovereign at courthouses. [1][5]

The remedy reaches beyond the two plaintiffs, but its future is not settled

The court rejected the government's request to limit relief to the plaintiff organizations and applied Administrative Procedure Act vacatur to the offending portion of the agency policy. Gothamist and the plaintiffs describe the practical effect as nationwide, while the court itself noted an unresolved broader debate over universal relief and said it was following current Second Circuit precedent unless a higher court changes it. A separate Northern District of California order already vacated overlapping ICE directives earlier in 2026. [1][2][5]

Spanish-language outlet CiberCuba highlighted the same distinction: the lawsuit centered on three Manhattan immigration courts, while advocacy groups and several newsrooms described the APA vacatur as national. That original Spanish report cautioned that implementation outside New York should be assessed by jurisdiction. No government appeal had been confirmed in the reviewed sources, and the Department of Homeland Security did not answer Gothamist's request for comment by publication time. [4][2]

A withdrawn dismissal policy narrowed the rest of the case

The lawsuit also challenged an Executive Office for Immigration Review policy that allowed immigration judges to grant certain oral government motions to dismiss removal cases without a written response from the person in proceedings. The court dismissed that part of the case as moot because the government had withdrawn the policy after an earlier order. The final judgment therefore rests on the procedural defect in ICE's courthouse-arrest policy, not a ruling on every due-process or statutory argument raised by the plaintiffs. [1][5]

The case changed course after government lawyers told the court in March that the 2025 memoranda they had cited did not actually apply to immigration courthouses, contrary to earlier representations. The judge first stayed the policy in May and then entered the final merits ruling on September 30. For people with required immigration hearings, the immediate practical question is whether officers comply with the restored limits and how any appeal affects them. [1][3][2]

How the sources compare