ICE's Courthouse-Arrest Policy Struck Down Nationwide — the Second APA Ruling, After DOJ's Own Candor Collapse

ICE's Courthouse-Arrest Policy Struck Down Nationwide — the Second APA Ruling, After DOJ's Own Candor Collapse

U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel (S.D.N.Y.) ruled on Sept. 30, 2026 (36-page opinion, widely reported Oct. 4) in African Communities Together and The Door v. Todd Lyons that ICE's 2025 policy of arresting immigrants at or near immigration courthouses is "arbitrary and capricious" under the Administrative Procedure Act — and set it aside nationwide, restoring pre-2025 protections barring courthouse arrests "except under limited circumstances," effective immediately. It is the second nationwide ruling against the practice, following Judge P. Casey Pitts (N.D. Cal.) in Pablo Sequen v. Albarran this June.

The litigation turned on the government's own admissions. In March, DOJ told Castel that the 2025 ICE memorandum it had repeatedly cited to defend courthouse arrests "does not and has never applied" to civil immigration enforcement in or near immigration courts — "We deeply regret this error," DOJ attorneys wrote. After that reversal, Castel stayed the policy; the final opinion affirms that stay and expands it nationwide. The companion challenge to EOIR's dismissal-urging policy was dismissed as moot because the government "had already fully and permanently rescinded it" after an earlier order.

The plaintiffs' framing explains what the policy did: it made court appearance itself the enforcement hook — "An immigration proceeding could be dismissed, followed by the person's immediate arrest at or near the courthouse and placement into an alternative, expedited removal process¹." Named examples include a 16-year-old Bronx high school student arrested at a routine court date.

Two quotes that carry the ruling's meaning:

• "People should not be arrested for doing exactly what the legal system requires of them. They should be able to come to court, take part in their cases, and leave without fear." — Oscar Sarabia Roman, ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project
• "For too long, we watched masked, often armed, ICE officers ambush noncitizens in courthouse hallways... 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." — Amy Belsher, NYCLU

What it means: a signature mass-deportation tactic has now been invalidated twice on the merits under the APA's reasoned-decisionmaking requirement — a doctrinal hit that doesn't depend on constitutional rulings. The open question is compliance, not validity: "Today marks a turning point, and our focus now shifts to doing everything in our power to ensure the government fully complies with the court's decision." — Harold Solis, Make the Road New York. Watch for an appeal or a compliance fight (tracked as a new watch this cycle).