Federal Judge Bans ICE Arrests at New York Courts

A federal judge in Manhattan issued a preliminary injunction in May 2026 barring ICE from making arrests in or near three New York immigration courts — a ruling that effectively transformed federal courthouse property into sanctuary zones and prompted NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani (D/DSA)to declare the decision a “victory for immigrant communities.” ICE agents arrested a man the same morning anyway. “We don’t care about that order,” one agent told reporters.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel (S.D.N.Y., appointed by George W. Bush) came in the case African Communities Together v. Lyons, No. 1:25-cv-06366. The case challenged Trump-era ICE courthouse arrest policy at three Manhattan Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) courts. Castel’s order found that courthouse arrests interfered with immigrant defendants’ access to legal proceedings — an argument the DOJ called a novel and unsupported theory of judicial sovereignty over federal enforcement on federal property.

The DOJ noted in its brief that the March 2026 version of the case had relied on an incorrect ICE operational memo — a procedural gap the government acknowledged and corrected before Castel issued the injunction anyway. The government filed notice of appeal to the Second Circuit on the day of the ruling.

• 29homicides committed by NYC sanctuary releases since January 20, 2025— DHS, May 2026
• 2,509assaults committed by NYC sanctuary releases since January 20, 2025— DHS, May 2026
• 3Manhattan EOIR immigration courts now barred to ICE enforcement— SDNY order
• 1:25-cv-06366SDNY case number — African Communities Together v. Lyons— SDNY docket

Castel’s preliminary injunction applied specifically to the three Manhattan EOIR courts where immigration removal proceedings are heard — not to federal courts broadly. The theory: ICE courthouse arrests chill the willingness of undocumented immigrants to appear for their own immigration hearings. The DOJ countered that the courthouse itself is federal property under federal jurisdiction, that immigration enforcement is exclusively an executive function, and that no court had previously accepted the theory that a district judge could prohibit executive law enforcement on federally owned property.

The procedural error: In the March 2026 phase of the case, the DOJ had cited an outdated ICE operational memo that had since been superseded. DOJ acknowledged the error and submitted the correct current memo — but Castel found the underlying authority question dispositive regardless of which memo governed, and issued the injunction on the broader constitutional grounds the plaintiffs raised.

ICE did not wait for the Second Circuit. Hours after Castel’s ruling was issued, agents arrested a man wanted on an outstanding removal order outside one of the three covered courts. When reporters asked whether agents were aware of the injunction, an agent responded: “We don’t care about that order.”

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem (R) said in a statement that the administration views the injunction as an unconstitutional intrusion on executive authority and would contest it at the Second Circuit and, if necessary, the Supreme Court. The DOJ has asked the Second Circuit for an emergency stay of the injunction pending appeal.

“A federal judge does not have the authority to create an immigration-free zone on federal property. We will appeal this to the Second Circuit and we will win.”

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem (R) · May 2026

A DHS data release in May 2026 quantified what New York’s sanctuary policy has cost the city’s residents since President Trump took office on January 20, 2025: 29 homicides and 2,509 assaults committed by individuals who had previously been arrested and released rather than transferred to ICE custody. The DHS analysis tracked individuals by their fingerprint and biometric records in federal databases.

Mayor Mamdani called the DHS data “a political attack on immigrant communities” and declined to comment on specific cases. His office did not dispute the underlying methodology.

The core legal question before the Second Circuit is whether a district court can enjoin federal executive law enforcement on federally owned property. The government’s position — supported by most constitutional scholars who have weighed in — is that no court has ever accepted this theory, that immigration enforcement is a plenary executive power under Article II, and that the Supremacy Clause bars states and localities (and their judges) from creating enforcement-free zones within federal jurisdiction.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys argue that courthouse sanctuary zones are essential to the functioning of the immigration court system itself — that if immigrants fear arrest while appearing for their own hearings, the entire due-process framework collapses. The Second Circuit panel will likely hear oral argument before the end of summer 2026.