\u201cThis is fishing in a stocked pool. You tell them, \u2018Show up at this location,\u2019 and then they show up and you grab them,\u201d one federal agent involved with immigration court arrests told HuffPost last year<\/a>. <\/p>\n The arrests were the result of a policy change last year: ICE leadership rescinded a Biden-era memo that prohibited most immigration court arrests because they created a \u201cchilling\u201d effect and \u201cdisincentivize[d] noncitizens from appearing for their hearings.\u201d Many people with immigration court cases faced an impossible choice: Show up to court and risk arrest, or skip a court date and risk a deportation order being filed against them as a result. <\/p>\n Monday\u2019s ruling pauses the arrests for now, except under certain circumstances, pending a final decision in a lawsuit over the policy. The Door, an immigrants\u2019 rights group that is a plaintiff in the case, \u201cdemonstrated a substantial likelihood\u201d that the Trump administration policy will be found to be \u201carbitrary and capricious\u201d when the full case is decided, wrote Judge P. Kevin Castel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. <\/p>\n The pause means that three New York City immigration courts and check-in sites will revert to the Biden-era policy, with arrests only permitted for national security threats and \u201cimminent\u201d risks.<\/p>\n The decision came after Justice Department attorneys admitted<\/a> a \u201cmaterial mistaken statement of fact\u201d and an \u201cattorney agency error\u201d on ICE\u2019s part: Immigration and Customs Enforcement had asserted the right to make immigration arrests in court, but the legal memo it cited had, in fact, applied only to criminal courts, not to immigration courthouses. <\/p>\n The Justice Department attorneys told the judge<\/a> that ICE attorneys had assured them that the courthouse arrest policy applied to immigration courts as well. The attorneys had stated as such as recently as January, the judge noted \u2014 only to reverse their position in March. <\/p>\n Castel wrote Monday that his decision to reexamine the courthouse arrests \u2014 after allowing them prior to the Trump administration admitting its \u201cerror\u201d \u2014 was necessary \u201cboth to correct a clear error and prevent a manifest injustice.\u201d <\/p>\n Immigration courts and immigration judges are part of the executive branch \u2014 their parent agency is the Justice Department \u2014 and are not part of the independent judicial branch.<\/p>\n The decision could have national implications if organizations in other jurisdictions apply Castel\u2019s legal logic. <\/p>\n \u201cThe 2025 ICE Courthouse Arrest Policies, on their face, appear to apply to all courthouses,\u201d the judge noted. <\/p>\n Spencer Platt via Getty Images<\/p>\n The Trump administration has indicated it will appeal the decision: \u201cIt is common sense to take illegal aliens into custody following the completion of their removal proceedings. Nothing prohibits arresting a lawbreaker where you find them. We are confident we will ultimately be vindicated in this case,\u201d a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson told The New York Times<\/a> Monday night. <\/p>\n![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/6a0c7ccc160000aa3cc172c6.jpeg\")
A Paraguayan woman whose relative was detained is surrounded by federal agents at the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building on July 16, 2025, in New York City. Various council members and a state senator attended immigration hearings and observed Immigration and Customs Enforcement as they continued their stepped-up tactics of detaining people during routine check-ins or showing up to court for their immigration hearings.<\/p>\n