A federal judge from the Southern District of New York issued a final ruling on Thursday that nullifies the ICE policy of arresting immigrants in immigration courts, deeming it "arbitrary and capricious" under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The ruling, consisting of 36 pages, is effective immediately and reinstates a 2021 guideline that only allows such arrests under very limited circumstances.
The decision comes on the same day that ICE also changed another one of its practices: an internal memorandum bans high-speed chases and restricts traffic stops to agents with specific training.
In less than 24 hours, ICE had to face changes in two of its law enforcement practices: one due to a court ruling and the other through a new internal guideline.
The ruling: what does it say and what is its scope?
The judge P. Kevin Castel concluded that ICE operated without a valid legal framework to make arrests in immigration courts and noted that the policy allowed its agents to exercise "unrestricted discretion... without any guidance."
The judge also pointed out that the government did not address in its writings the argument that the policy was arbitrary and capricious. According to Castel, the procedural documents "remain silent on whether the policy is arbitrary and capricious."
Este fallo podría tener implicaciones para miles de inmigrantes con citas pendientes en cortes del país, aunque su alcance y aplicación concreta deben analizarse según cada jurisdicción. Sigue los últimos desarrollos en nuestra sección de
The background of the case is relevant. ICE had justified the arrests in a memorandum from May 2025, but in March of this year, the agency itself admitted to the court that this document contained a "materially false statement of fact": the guidance only applied to criminal courts, not immigration courts.
The then federal prosecutor Jay Clayton apologized to the judge: "We deeply regret that this error has come to light at this late stage."
Regarding the geographical scope of the ruling, it is important to make a distinction.
According to Courthouse News, the lawsuit focuses on the three immigration courts in Manhattan. Other organizations and media outlets, including the ACLU and amNewYork, have described the overturning of the policy under the Administrative Procedure Act as having nationwide effects. This distinction is important when assessing the practical implications of the ruling outside of New York.
The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to requests for comment, and it has not been confirmed whether the government will appeal.
"The court's ruling is a monumental victory for immigrant families and the rule of law. It puts an end to the cruel practice of arresting immigrants simply for appearing at their hearings," stated Harold Solis, co-legal director of Make the Road New York.
A timeline of judicial setbacks for ICE
This ruling is not the first. In December 2025, a judge in California blocked ICE arrests in courts in San Francisco, Sacramento, and Concord.
On June 23, 2026, Judge P. Casey Pitts issued a nationwide ruling that struck down three key directives from ICE and extended protections across the country.
The ruling from Castel this Thursday definitively closes the case in New York, unless new judicial actions arise from a potential appeal.
What changes for Cubans with appointments in Miami?
For thousands of Cubans with I-220A, humanitarian temporary parole, or pending asylum applications, the ruling raises questions about its practical impact, especially due to the differing interpretations of its geographical scope. Immigration attorneys, in the meantime, continue to advise caution for those with pending hearings.
Since September 8, the Miami Immigration Court has eliminated video appearances for non-detained cases, requiring everyone to appear in person.
The facilities have been overwhelmed: the lines extended to a nearby hotel and the multi-story parking lot was full before 7:30 in the morning.
The lawyer Willy Allen warned just days ago that “nothing has changed” regarding ICE arrests, pointing out that the agency continues to arrest even individuals with no criminal records.
This Thursday, the case of a Cuban with parole detained while working for Uber was reported, classified by ICE as an “arriving alien”, which, according to Allen, prevents him from being eligible for bail.
The lawyer Liudmila Marcelo was emphatic in August: "I have seen many lawyers say these days: my client is not coming, does not want to show up. And, gentlemen, no, no... They must appear. In any case, they must show up."
This week, she reiterated that advice for those facing their final hearing: do not go without a lawyer and do not let fear paralyze you.
Under federal law, anyone who fails to appear at their hearing may be deported without appearing before a judge.
That consequence does not change with this court ruling. The class action Bello-Rubio v. Noem, which includes 992 Cubans with I-220A, remains active in the Southern District of Florida following Judge Jacqueline Becerra's rejection of the government's attempt to dismiss the case, which keeps an additional legal avenue open for that community.
Related videos:
Filed under: