A federal judge on Monday dismissed the Trump administration’s effort to overturn a New York law that forbids federal immigration authorities from carrying out civil immigration arrests of individuals traveling to and from state courthouses — a statute passed at the height of blue-state resistance to immigration enforcement.
U.S. District Judge Mae D’Agostino, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, ruled against the administration and upheld New York’s Protect Our Courts Act, a 2020 law that sharply limits the ability of Immigration and Customs Enforcement to detain individuals without a judicial warrant in or around court facilities. The law arose after ICE increased courthouse arrests during President Trump’s first term, departing from prior practice and drawing vocal opposition from New York Democrats.
In a 41-page opinion, D’Agostino rejected the administration’s argument that New York’s restrictions unconstitutionally obstruct federal immigration enforcement or conflict with federal law. “To hold to the contrary would improperly elevate the concerns of the federal sovereign over that of a State and deprive New York of its essential ability to protect its sovereign interests in the face of undue federal interference,” she wrote.
The statute provides broad protections, shielding any individual from warrantless civil immigration arrests while attending court proceedings — whether as a party, witness, or accompanying family member. Those protections explicitly extend to travel to and from courthouses. Violations, under state law, may lead to both civil and criminal penalties, creating a substantial deterrent for federal enforcement personnel operating in the state.
D’Agostino’s ruling also upheld two executive orders signed by former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, which bar state employees from disclosing information to federal immigration authorities and prohibit immigration arrests in state facilities absent a judicial warrant.
She contended that New York, as the owner and proprietor of its court system, may determine what activities are permissible on state property. “New York is not attempting to regulate federal agents and it is not prohibiting the federal government from enforcing immigration law,” she wrote. “Rather, it is simply defining, as a proprietor, what activities are not permissible in state-owned facilities. Such conduct does not run afoul of the intergovernmental immunity doctrine.”
The administration filed suit in June, part of a broader legal strategy to challenge a series of blue-state policies that restrict cooperation with federal immigration authorities. The Justice Department argued that New York’s policies impermissibly interfere with federal operations, writing that “Contrary to New York’s assertions, the Tenth Amendment gives states no right to undermine, regulate, or discriminate against federal agents.”
The decision underscores the continuing friction between federal authorities seeking to reassert immigration enforcement priorities and states that have, over time, constructed elaborate legal defenses designed to insulate undocumented residents from arrest. For now, New York’s restrictions remain intact, prohibiting courthouse arrests even as federal officials argue they are essential tools in apprehending individuals with pending immigration orders.
[READ MORE: Officer Critically Injured in Collision During Security Escort for Vice President Vance]
