A federal district court has granted a stay in African Communities Together and The Door v. Todd Lyons—a lawsuit filed by the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Make the Road NY (MRNY), and others—challenging ICE’s practices of arresting people showing up to court and preventing them from pursuing their immigration cases. The court acted after ICE admitted it does not and has never had an explanation or justification for conducting mass arrests at immigration courts.
What changed
Under the stay, ICE officers are largely prohibited from conducting civil immigration enforcement actions in or near 26 Federal Plaza, 201 Varick Street, and 290 Broadway in Manhattan as the case proceeds. Officers must now adhere to ICE’s 2021 guidance, which only permits immigration court arrests in very limited circumstances.
In March, the government admitted to the judge that the 2025 memorandum it used to justify its immigration court arrests in fact “does not and has never” authorized these arrests. This reversal was the key turning point: ICE had been operating under a policy memo that, it now concedes, never actually granted the authority to sweep courthouses.
For nearly a year, masked ICE officers ambushed noncitizens in courthouse hallways and threw immigrant New Yorkers to the ground. Now, ICE has admitted it has no explanation or justification for these arrests.
Why it matters
This stay fundamentally changes the risk calculation for your clients and their families. Previously, many people faced an impossible choice: arrive at court and risk ICE arresting and detaining them, or give up on a path to remaining in the country legally. The stay removes that trap for hearings at the three affected New York City locations.
For practitioners:
- Clients with pending hearings at 26 Federal Plaza, 201 Varick Street, or 290 Broadway can now attend court without facing the broad arrest risk that has prevailed since early 2025.
- The 2021 guidance standard (very limited circumstances for arrest) replaces the expansive 2025 approach.
- The stay is temporary pending final resolution of the Administrative Procedure Act claims, so the broader legal fight continues.
Practical gaps:
- The stay applies only to these three NYC locations. ICE enforcement at other courthouses (or outside courthouses) remains unaffected.
- The stay is preliminary; if ICE wins on the merits or on appeal, the policy could revert.
Way forward
- Verify current location. Confirm your client’s hearing is at one of the three covered addresses. If not, the stay does not apply.
- Monitor the docket. The case will continue to final judgment. Judge Castel ruled the plaintiffs were likely to prove the policy was “arbitrary and capricious” and issued the stay while he continued to evaluate if the arrest policy violates the Administrative Procedures Act. Subscribe to case updates.
- Brief clients on the stay’s scope. Make clear the protections apply only at those three court facilities and only to civil immigration arrests—criminal or administrative holds for other reasons may still occur.
- Document any courthouse enforcement. If ICE violates the stay, preserve evidence and contact the plaintiffs’ counsel or your local immigration law center.
Disclaimer
Fola is not a law firm and this article is not legal advice. Consult a licensed immigration attorney before relying on this information. Policy decisions and court orders can change without notice. Always verify the current status of this case and the stay order against the primary source linked above before advising a client. Immigration law is fact-specific and rapidly evolving; do not substitute this article for individualized counsel from a qualified practitioner.