Law360 (October 1, 2026, 9:58 PM EDT) -- A New York federal judge vacated a 2025 policy change that gave U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents "unfettered discretion" to arrest noncitizens at immigration courthouses after the government admitted guidance cited for the shift never applied to immigration courts.

In a decision issued Wednesday, U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel entered final judgment holding that the policy change was arbitrary and capricious since it scrapped guidance issued in 2021 for civil immigration arrests at immigration courts and nonimmigration courts without providing any replacement restrictions for immigration court arrests or explaining the policy change.

"In this court's view, ICE's policy as to arrests in immigration courthouses is that officers may exercise 'unfettered discretion … with no guidance whatsoever' from ICE," said Judge Castel, who stayed the policy change in May.

"Because the January 2025 interim guidance and May 2025 final guidance do not apply to immigration courts, the rationales for the change in policy as to other types of courthouses provided in those documents cannot be used to supply 'a reasoned explanation for the change' in policy as to immigration courts," the judge added.

The decision restored the prior guidance, which generally limited immigration court arrests to situations that involve things such as national security threats, imminent risks of death or violence, or the "hot pursuit" of someone who poses a public safety threat.

Judge Castel noted that the government's belated acknowledgment that the ICE guidance did not apply to immigration courts came in March after he initially refused to stay the policy, which was challenged by the organizations African Communities Together and The Door.

According to the judge, the government did not even try to defend against claims that ICE displayed no awareness it was changing its policy to give agents unlimited discretion to make immigration court arrests, failed to provide any reasoning for the policy shift, and failed to consider the importance of access to immigration courts.

The judge held that a challenge of an Executive Office for Immigration Review policy that purported to give immigration judges authority to dismiss immigration proceedings based on oral motions made by the federal government was moot after the office had rescinded it. The judge, who stayed the policy in September 2025, said a withdrawal communication had described the policy as "poorly drafted" and outside the office's authority.

Groups involved in the litigation applauded the decision as a victory for a case challenging one of the Trump administration's "most extreme policies."

"Today's ruling is an enormous win for every noncitizen seeking to safely attend their immigration court proceedings," Amy Belsher, the director of immigrant rights' litigation at the New York Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement Thursday.

"For too long, we watched masked, often armed, ICE officers ambush noncitizens in courthouse hallways, throw immigrants to the ground, and tear sobbing children from their parents. But with today's order, the court made clear: ICE's cruel, unjustified policy of conducting mass immigration arrests in courthouses is unlawful and cannot stand," Belsher added.

Harold Solis, co-legal director for the Make the Road New York, called the ruling a "monumental victory for immigrant families and the rule of law."

"It brings to an end the cruel and callous practice of arresting immigrants simply for showing up to their court hearings — something that no one should have to worry about, and yet so many were forced to live under that cloud of fear," Solis said in a statement Thursday.

A California federal judge vacated the immigration court arrest policy on similar grounds in June.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which includes ICE and was named as a defendant in the litigation, and the U.S. Department of Justice, which includes the Executive Office for Immigration Review, did not immediately respond to requests for comment Thursday.

The plaintiffs are represented by Amy Belsher, Elizabeth Gyori, Wafa Junaid, Claire Molholm, Thomas Munson, Megan Porter and Robert Hodgson of New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Noor Zafar, Michael Tan, Hannah Steinberg and Oscar Sarabia Roman of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Katherine Rosenfeld, Samuel Shapiro and Emily Wanger of Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel LLP, and Harold Solis and Paige Austin of Make the Road New York.

The government is represented by Tomoko Onozawa and Sean Buckley of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York.

The case is African Communities Together et al. v. Venturella et al., case number 1:25-cv-06366, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

--Additional reporting by Hailey Konnath and Rae Ann Varona. Editing by Nick Siwek.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.