A federal judge has barred ICE from conducting arrests at New York City immigration courts except under specific emergency conditions, following nearly a year of legal challenges filed by immigrant advocacy organizations African Communities Together and The Door. Under the order, federal agents may only conduct arrests under circumstances including “imminent risk of death, violence or physical harm.”
What changed
Judge Kevin Castel on May 18, 2026, issued a stay barring ICE arrests inside immigration courthouses after a nearly year-long legal fight over arrests inside courts under the Trump administration. The order applies to courts at 26 Federal Plaza, 201 Varick Street and 290 Broadway — except in extenuating circumstances of public safety or national security.
The suit challenges ICE arrests targeting immigrants attending mandatory court appearances. Castel ruled that plaintiffs were likely to prove the policy change allowing courthouse arrests was “arbitrary and capricious.”
Why it matters
Advocates said the enforcement practices turned Manhattan immigration courts into centers of fear for immigrants seeking to comply with court orders. The arrests have forced immigrants facing deportation to make an impossible choice — show up to court and risk arrest and detention, or miss a hearing and be ordered removed in absentia.
For immigration practitioners: this order significantly reduces (though does not eliminate) the risk your clients face by attending mandatory hearings. The arrests contributed to a 212 percent increase in ICE arrests involving people who were not already in jail or detention since the start of President Donald Trump’s second administration. You must still advise clients of the narrow exceptions — national security threats and imminent risk of death or violence — but the chilling effect of routine courthouse arrests has been materially reduced by this preliminary injunction.
The court found that clients of The Door, which provides legal services to immigrant youth, faced harm by attending court hearings where they risked “on-the-spot arrest” or avoiding court appearances altogether and receiving default removal orders.
Way forward
- Re-evaluate risk for pending hearings: Review client files and advise clients who have deferred appearances that the court now protects most courthouse attendance from arrest (with the narrow emergency exceptions noted).
- Document the order: Save and reference Castel’s preliminary injunction in any correspondence with USCIS or in court filings involving clients whose strategy was affected by the prior arrest risk.
- Monitor ongoing litigation: The underlying case continues. DHS has signaled it will appeal; a federal judge in California has issued a nationwide similar order. Stay alert to changes.
- Preserve the record: If your clients were previously deterred from court appearances or suffered other harms from the pre-order arrest policy, document those impacts for potential class-action or damages claims.
Disclaimer
Fola Editorial is a software company, not a law firm, and this article does not constitute legal advice. Immigration policy can change without notice, and court orders may be stayed, reversed, or modified on appeal. Always verify the current status of this injunction and consult a licensed immigration attorney before advising clients on attendance risk or litigation strategy. Read the full order and underlying litigation documents before relying on this summary.