A federal judge in Manhattan ruled that ICE’s 2025 courthouse arrest guidance was arbitrary and capricious as it applies to immigration courts, and set that part of the guidance aside. U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, a Republican, issued the ruling in African Communities Together v. Venturella on September 30, according to the court’s 36-page opinion. ICE’s policy for arrests at those courts now reverts to a narrower April 2021 memo, the court said.
What the court set aside
Castel vacated the January 2025 interim guidance and the May 2025 final guidance only “to the extent” they rescinded the April 2021 guidance for civil enforcement actions in or near immigration courts. The rest of the 2025 guidance, which covers other courthouses, was left in place.
The April 2021 memo allowed arrests in or near courthouses, immigration courts included, only in narrow cases: a national security threat, an imminent risk of death, violence or physical harm, hot pursuit of a person who poses a public safety threat, or an imminent risk that evidence in a criminal case would be destroyed. It also allowed some public safety arrests when no safe alternative location existed and a supervisor approved in advance.
Why the judge found the policy arbitrary and capricious
Castel found that ICE rescinded the 2021 rules for immigration courts without acknowledging the change or explaining it. The government did not defend the policy on that point, and its briefs did not address whether it was arbitrary and capricious.
The ruling follows a reversal by the government during the case. On March 24, 2026, government lawyers told the court that ICE now said the 2025 memos never applied to immigration courts, contradicting what they had argued for months. Without that coverage, the court said, ICE officers had “unfettered discretion” and “no guidance whatsoever” for arrests at immigration courts.
How the case reached this point
The plaintiffs, African Communities Together and The Door, sued in 2025. On September 12, 2025, Castel declined to stay the arrest policy, relying partly on the government’s earlier statements that the 2025 memos covered immigration courts. After the March letter, he stayed the policy on May 18, 2026, to the same extent the new ruling now vacates it.
The judge also dismissed as moot a second challenge, to a May 2025 email telling Immigration judgeAn attorney appointed by the Attorney General who presides over removal proceedings in immigration court, part of the Executive Office for Immigration Review.See it in the glossary they could grant oral dismissal motions from DHS without a written response. The Executive Office for Immigration Review withdrew that email on September 23, 2025, and the court found no reasonable expectation that it would return.
What the ruling does not decide
Castel rejected the plaintiffs’ other argument, that the policy violated a common-law privilege against civil arrests at courthouses, and entered judgment for the government on that claim. The ruling rests on how ICE changed its policy, not on a finding that every courthouse arrest is unlawful, and ICE can still make arrests that fit the 2021 limits.
The order does not limit the VacaturA court order that cancels an agency rule or action and removes its legal effect. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 706, courts set aside agency action found to be unlawful, which is traditionally treated as vacatur. Whether vacatur can reach beyond the parties to a case is disputed after Trump v. CASA.See it in the glossary to the two plaintiff groups. The court rejected the government’s argument for narrower relief, noting that the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Trump v. CASA limited universal injunctions but did not resolve whether the Administrative Procedure Act allows courts to vacate agency action. Castel said he was bound by Second Circuit precedent treating vacatur as the usual remedy. A federal judge in California had earlier vacated the same 2025 guidance in Pablo Sequen v. Albarran, and Castel saw no conflict between the two orders.
This is a district court ruling, and the opinion does not say whether the government will appeal. For how courts use vacatur and injunctions, see our explainer on nationwide injunctions, and for what happens at a hearing, see immigration court notices.