A federal judge in New York has temporarily barred U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement from carrying out routine civil immigration arrests in and around three Manhattan immigration court locations, a significant court-imposed limit on an enforcement practice that immigrant-rights groups said discouraged people from attending required hearings.

U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel granted a stay in the case African Communities Together and The Door v. Todd Lyons, according to the New York Civil Liberties Union and other groups involved in the lawsuit. The order applies to immigration court sites at 26 Federal Plaza, 201 Varick Street and 290 Broadway, where noncitizens appear for hearings, check-ins and other immigration proceedings.

The ruling does not categorically eliminate all enforcement activity at those locations. Instead, it largely prohibits civil immigration arrests in or near the courthouses while requiring ICE officers to follow narrower 2021 courthouse-arrest guidance, which allowed such enforcement only in limited circumstances. The order remains in effect while the litigation continues, unless modified by the court or a higher court.

The decision follows months of legal conflict over courthouse arrests, a tactic that drew renewed attention after federal agents began taking some people into custody after they appeared for immigration proceedings. Immigrant-rights organizations argued that the practice forced people to choose between complying with immigration court obligations and risking detention. They also said it interfered with access to asylum and other forms of legal relief by making court appearances unsafe for people already navigating a complex system.

The plaintiffs in the case include African Communities Together and The Door, two New York-based organizations that serve immigrant communities. The lawsuit was filed with representation from the NYCLU, the American Civil Liberties Union, Make the Road New York and Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel LLP. The groups challenged federal policies they said allowed ICE agents to arrest people simply for appearing in court and prevented them from pursuing pending immigration claims.

Castel’s order came after a significant development in the government’s own presentation of the case. According to the NYCLU and ACLU, federal officials recently acknowledged that the government had no justification for conducting mass courthouse arrests under the authority it had previously cited. The advocacy groups said the court’s stay responded to that admission and preserved access to immigration proceedings while the legal challenge is heard.

Associated Press coverage of the order described the ruling as an abrupt halt to a practice begun under the Trump administration and noted that federal agents would no longer be able to make arrests without exceptional circumstances in and around the three Manhattan buildings. CBS New York, citing AP reporting, also reported that the order applies to the lower Manhattan immigration court locations and limits arrests unless narrow conditions are met.

The legal stakes extend beyond the three buildings named in the order. Immigration courts rely on respondents appearing for scheduled proceedings, often over months or years. Lawyers and advocates have argued that courthouse arrests can cause people to skip hearings, lose opportunities to pursue asylum or other relief, or be ordered removed in absentia. The plaintiffs say that is not merely a practical problem but a due-process issue because federal enforcement practices may undermine access to the very legal process the government requires people to attend.

The government has defended courthouse enforcement as a lawful and efficient way to take custody of people subject to immigration proceedings, particularly after proceedings have concluded. The Department of Homeland Security, in earlier comments reported by AP, criticized the judge’s ruling and argued that taking people into custody after removal proceedings was a matter of common sense. The agency did not immediately comment on a reported arrest that immigrant-rights groups said occurred after the order.

That reported arrest added a fast-moving follow-up to the ruling. AP reported that a 21-year-old man was arrested at one of the covered locations one day after the judge issued the order. Immigrant-rights lawyers and groups, including the New York Legal Assistance Group and the NYCLU, said they were gathering information to determine whether the arrest complied with the limited exceptions left open by the court. Rep. Dan Goldman, a New York Democrat, criticized the incident as appearing to violate the court order, according to AP.

The uncertainty around that arrest underscores one of the immediate enforcement questions created by Castel’s order: how ICE officers and courthouse personnel will apply the exceptions in practice. The 2021 guidance generally restricted civil immigration enforcement actions in or near courthouses, reflecting concerns that such arrests could deter witnesses, victims, litigants and respondents from participating in legal proceedings. The court’s stay effectively revives that more restrictive framework for the covered immigration court sites while the case proceeds.

For New York City, the ruling lands in a broader debate over immigration enforcement, sanctuary policies and the role of federal agents in local civic spaces. The city’s immigration courts process large numbers of cases involving asylum seekers, long-term residents and people fighting deportation. Legal-service providers have warned that visible arrests at court buildings can spread fear well beyond the individuals detained, affecting families, witnesses and community members who may be required to appear at government offices.

The order also raises administrative-law questions about how immigration agencies issue and revise enforcement guidance. The plaintiffs contend that ICE’s policy changes were unlawful because they expanded courthouse arrests and affected access to relief without adequate justification. The government disputes key parts of the challenge, and the merits of the lawsuit remain unresolved. Castel’s stay is a temporary measure, not a final ruling on the full legality of the challenged policies.

Still, the immediate effect is concrete. At 26 Federal Plaza, 201 Varick Street and 290 Broadway, ICE officers are now under court-imposed limits on civil immigration arrests in and near the immigration courts. Immigrant-rights groups are likely to monitor compliance closely, especially after the reported post-order arrest. Federal officials, meanwhile, may seek to defend the policy in continued proceedings or ask an appellate court to narrow or lift the stay.

Until the litigation advances, the ruling sets a clear interim baseline: people appearing for immigration proceedings in the covered New York City courts should not face routine civil arrest at or near the courthouse unless ICE can point to circumstances permitted under the restored restrictions. For a system that depends on attendance, representation and orderly hearings, the order is both a legal constraint on enforcement and a test of whether immigration court access can be protected while federal detention authority remains intact.