(ALBANY, NEW YORK) A federal judge in Albany has upheld New York’s Protect Our Courts Act, rejecting a Trump-era lawsuit that sought to let federal immigration agents resume civil immigration arrests inside state courthouses. In a ruling issued November 17, 2025, U.S. District Judge Mae A. D’Agostino dismissed the challenge brought by the U.S. Department of Justice and confirmed that, in New York, federal officers may not carry out civil immigration arrests at state courthouses without a judge-signed criminal warrant.
Background of the lawsuit and legal claims
The lawsuit, filed during the Trump administration, argued that New York’s law and related executive orders conflicted with federal immigration powers and therefore violated the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. Justice Department lawyers claimed the state had no right to limit how federal immigration agents operate in and around courthouses and warned that the restrictions could interfere with federal enforcement priorities.
Judge D’Agostino rejected that reading of the Constitution and instead emphasized New York’s long-recognized authority to manage safety and conduct inside its own courts. She held that the state can decide what types of arrests are allowed on courthouse grounds and under what conditions as part of its power to run a functioning justice system.
The court treated the Protect Our Courts Act as a neutral rule about courthouse conduct, not a directive about federal immigration policy. This allows states to set ground rules for behavior on state property without nullifying federal immigration law.
Key holdings about warrants and arrests
A critical portion of the ruling concerns administrative immigration warrants—internal documents used by immigration officers in civil cases.
- Administrative warrants include:
- Form I-200 (Warrant for Arrest of Alien)
- Form I-205 (Warrant of Removal/Deportation)
The court stressed that these administrative forms, even if valid under federal law, do not count as judicial warrants under New York law and therefore do not permit civil immigration arrests in state courthouses.
By contrast, the ruling makes clear:
- Only a judge-signed criminal warrant—for example, one issued by a criminal court based on probable cause—allows officers to carry out arrests of noncitizens in or around New York courthouses.
- Without that type of warrant, immigration agents may not arrest parties, witnesses, or family members who are coming to court for hearings, trials, or other proceedings.
Information about immigration warrants and enforcement tools is available from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement on the ICE official website.
Quick comparison table: warrants and courthouse arrests
| Warrant type | Issued by | Permits civil immigration arrest in NY state courthouses? |
|---|---|---|
| Form I-200 / I-205 (administrative) | Immigration officials (non-judicial) | No |
| Judge-signed criminal warrant | Criminal court/judge (probable cause) | Yes |
What the Protect Our Courts Act does — and does not do
- The Protect Our Courts Act explicitly bars civil immigration arrests at New York state courthouses unless carried out under a judge-signed criminal warrant.
- Judge D’Agostino’s decision confirms that these protections remain fully in force.
What the law does not do:
- It does not stop federal officers from making civil immigration arrests in other locations (e.g., public places).
- It does not affect arrests or enforcement in federal buildings or facilities.
- For example, immigration arrests at 26 Federal Plaza in Manhattan—which houses key federal immigration offices—are unaffected.
- It does not grant any immigration status, visas, or work authorization.
Federal agencies remain free to use their normal civil enforcement tools at federal facilities and in the community, so long as they follow federal law and policy. For general information on immigration benefits and processes see U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services at uscis.gov.
Reasons lawmakers passed the law and reported impacts
New York lawmakers enacted the law after years of reports that Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers were waiting in or near courthouses to pick up people they believed removable under federal law.
Advocates said many targeted individuals had come to court not as criminal defendants but as:
- victims or witnesses,
- people handling civil matters like child custody, housing, or traffic cases.
They argued that courthouse arrests spread fear in immigrant communities and discouraged people from using the courts.
Reported effects once protections took effect:
- Public defenders, prosecutors, and judges reported witnesses became more willing to appear.
- Victims of domestic violence felt safer seeking restraining orders.
- People with pending immigration cases were less afraid to resolve unrelated state or family issues.
Supporters say Judge D’Agostino’s decision will prevent a return to the days when a routine court appearance could end with a civil immigration arrest at the courthouse door.
Practical impact for immigrants and mixed-status families
For many immigrants and mixed-status families in New York, the decision provides a clearer rule:
- Court is for court business. Immigration arrests there are allowed only when a judge has signed a criminal warrant.
- Community groups say this helps people:
- keep court dates,
- seek protection orders,
- comply with probation or family court requirements,
- and participate in the justice system without fear of surprise civil arrests tied to immigration status.
Legal service providers have long warned that fear of courthouses harms both victims and the justice system.
Broader legal significance and potential influence
From a legal standpoint, the case demonstrates how federal and state powers can interact without one fully cancelling the other.
- Judge D’Agostino acknowledged that immigration is primarily a federal domain but ruled that this does not force states to open their courthouses to every kind of civil arrest.
- The court treated the state law as a neutral regulation of conduct on state property rather than as an attempt to supersede federal immigration law.
The decision is likely to be studied by lawmakers and courts in other states debating similar “courthouse safety” or “court access” laws. Some states have relied on informal agreements with federal agencies; others have passed limits on civil immigration arrests in or near courthouses. New York’s federal-court victory may encourage those states to defend similar policies—especially where judges and prosecutors say they help keep witnesses and victims engaged.
Key takeaways
- In New York, civil immigration arrests at state courthouses are prohibited unless based on a judge-signed criminal warrant.
- Administrative immigration warrants (Form I-200 and I-205) do not permit courthouse arrests under state law.
- The ruling preserves state authority to set safety and conduct rules for its courthouses while leaving federal immigration enforcement intact elsewhere.
For additional details on immigration enforcement tools, see the ICE official website. For information on immigration benefits and processes, visit uscis.gov.
This Article in a Nutshell
On November 17, 2025, U.S. District Judge Mae A. D’Agostino upheld New York’s Protect Our Courts Act, rejecting the federal lawsuit. The court ruled administrative immigration warrants (Form I-200 and I-205) are not judicial warrants under state law and cannot justify civil immigration arrests inside state courthouses. Only judge-signed criminal warrants based on probable cause permit such arrests. The decision preserves courthouse safety rules, protects witnesses and victims, and leaves federal enforcement powers intact outside state courthouses and in federal facilities.
