By Richard T. Herman, Esq.
Immigration Lawyer (30+ Years), Herman Legal Group

Schedule a consultation:
Schedule a Consultation (https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/book-consultation/)

QUICK ANSWER

A federal judge has upheld New York’s Protect Our Courts Act, confirming that ICE cannot conduct civil immigration arrests in or around New York state courthouses unless it has a judge-signed criminal warrant.
The ruling closes the door on years of courthouse targeting and strengthens due process, victim safety, and access to justice.

This case has national implications, offering powerful new defense strategies for immigrants fighting removal—even in states like Ohio, which do not have similar protections.

Key Sources:

Reuters coverage of the ruling
AP News coverage of the dismissal of DOJ’s challenge
Times Union reporting + access to the judge’s order
PACER docket citation to the federal court case
New York State’s official Protect Our Courts Act pages

All links appear below and throughout the article.

federal judge allows ny state to ban ice arrests in courthouse unless criminal warrant

FAST FACTS

Topic	Summary
Law	New York’s Protect Our Courts Act
Legal Question	Can states block federal civil immigration arrests in state courthouses?
Ruling	YES. Judge upheld the state law.
Judge	Hon. Mae A. D’Agostino (U.S. District Court, N.D.N.Y.)
Key Impact	ICE must have a judge-signed criminal warrant for courthouse arrests.
Primary Sources	Reuters, Times Union, AP News, PACER

1. What New York’s Protect Our Courts Act Actually Says

New York’s Protect Our Courts Act (POCA) prohibits ICE and CBP from making civil immigration arrests of people who are:

arriving at a state courthouse
inside the courthouse
leaving a courthouse
or in the immediate vicinity of the courthouse

unless ICE has a criminal warrant signed by a judge.

2. What the Federal Judge Ruled — And Why It Matters

The U.S. Department of Justice sued New York, arguing the state law interfered with federal immigration powers.
Judge Mae A. D’Agostino dismissed the challenge.

Confirmed by:

Judge’s Key Findings

✔ New York has sovereign power to regulate conduct in its courthouses.
✔ The law does not conflict with federal statutes because ICE can still execute criminal warrants.
✔ Protecting the integrity of courts is a legitimate state interest.
✔ Civil immigration arrests at courthouses create a chilling effect on due process.

3. Link to the Judge’s Order

A. Public Access Copy

Times Union – Embedded Judge’s Order
The Times Union page contains a link to the judge’s full decision in PDF form.
https://www.timesunion.com/capitol/article/judge-dismisses-doj-challenge-ny-law-banning-21194198.php

B. Official Federal Court Citation (PACER)

U.S. District Court, Northern District of New York
United States v. State of New York
Case No. 1:25-cv-00677-MAD
Searchable via PACER: https://pacer.uscourts.gov

4. Due Process Impact: Why Courts Must Be Safe

Civil immigration arrests at courthouses undermine:

victims seeking restraining orders
witnesses asked to testify
defendants who need to appear in criminal or family court
unrepresented immigrants who must appear for minor matters

Reuters documented extensive ICE courthouse operations:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ice-arrests-migrants-courthouses-opens-door-fast-track-deportations-2025-05-23/

The judge emphasized that POCA enhances access to justice, not obstruction of federal law.

5. Does This Ruling Apply Nationwide?

Not automatically.

However, it provides:

1. A blueprint for other states

California, New Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts, Washington, and Colorado may follow.

2. A powerful argument for motions to suppress or terminate

If ICE arrests violate local law, federal judges and immigration judges may view the arrest as:

unconstitutional
unlawful
or grounds to suppress evidence

3. A clear model for future state-level legislation

This ruling strengthens the legal foundation for similar laws nationwide.

6. Ohio Has NO Courthouse Protections — Making Immigrants Vulnerable

Unlike New York, Ohio has no statute restricting civil immigration arrests in or around state courthouses.

This means ICE may still:

wait in courthouse parking lots
target individuals leaving criminal or family court
identify immigrants through docket information
coordinate with local law enforcement
arrest based solely on civil immigration warrants

Ohio Immigrants MUST:

coordinate every court appearance with an immigration attorney
never attend court alone
plan safe arrival and departure routes
carry a Know-Your-Rights card
prepare an emergency family plan

Herman Legal Group links:

Removal Defense: https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/removal-defense/
Deportation Defense: https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/deportation-defense/
Know Your Rights: https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/know-your-rights/
Ohio Offices:
- Cleveland: https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/cleveland-office/
- Columbus: https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/columbus-office/
- Cincinnati: https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/cincinnati-office/
- Dayton: https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/dayton-office/

7. Strategic Defense Uses in Removal Proceedings

✔ Suppression Motions

Argue ICE violated state law → evidence should be suppressed.

✔ Motions to Terminate

If the arrest was unlawful or violated due-process rights.

✔ Federal Court Appeals

POCA now strengthens federalism-based arguments.

✔ Interplay with Criminal Courts

Coordinate criminal defense, family law, and immigration defense strategies.

8. Expert Commentary — Richard T. Herman, Esq.

“Courthouse arrests are among the most dangerous tools ICE uses to target vulnerable immigrants. New York’s law — and the federal court ruling — restore dignity and fairness to the justice system.”

“For people in Ohio, this ruling is a wake-up call. Without protections like New York’s, every court appearance is a high-risk situation. Preparation is everything.”

“In immigration court, we now use decisions like this to challenge unlawful arrests, suppress evidence, and fight for our clients’ right to due process.”

9. Frequently Asked Questions

Does this ruling protect immigrants in Ohio?

No. It applies only in New York—but offers persuasive authority elsewhere.

Can ICE still arrest people in New York courthouses?

Yes—but only with a judge-signed criminal warrant.

Does POCA protect undocumented immigrants?

Yes. It protects all people attending or traveling to a state courthouse.

Can this ruling help my removal case?

Yes. It strengthens defenses involving:

unlawful arrests
due-process violations
suppression arguments
termination arguments

Will other states adopt similar laws?

Many likely will. This ruling gives them a legal basis to act.

10.) More: What the Judge Actually Said — Detailed Breakdown of the Ruling

Judge Mae A. D’Agostino’s Key Legal Findings

In dismissing the DOJ challenge, the judge made several pivotal conclusions about New York’s authority to restrict ICE’s civil immigration activity at courthouses:

🔹 1. States Have Sovereign Power Over Their Own Courthouses

The judge held that New York’s law was a valid exercise of state authority:

“New York retains the unquestioned authority to regulate conduct within its own courthouses and to ensure those courts remain open and accessible to the public.”

This is the core of the ruling — and the part most likely to be cited by other states and legal advocates.

🔹 2. The Law Does NOT Conflict With Federal Immigration Statutes

DOJ argued the state law violated the Supremacy Clause.
The judge rejected that argument:

“The Protect Our Courts Act does not stand as an obstacle to federal immigration enforcement. Federal agents remain free to execute valid criminal warrants.”

In other words:

The law limits civil immigration arrests
Federal criminal authority is untouched
Therefore: no conflict, no preemption

🔹 3. Protecting Access to the Courts Is a Legitimate and Compelling State Interest

The ruling repeatedly acknowledged that ICE courthouse arrests produce a “chilling effect” on the justice system.

The judge wrote:

“The chilling effect created by civil immigration arrests in and around courthouses undermines the administration of justice and deters the public from accessing courts.”

And:

“This harm is neither speculative nor abstract. It is supported by substantial evidence.”

This is extremely important for due process arguments in immigration court.

🔹 4. ICE Cannot Use Civil Administrative Warrants to Conduct Courthouse Arrests

The judge confirmed that civil immigration warrants (Form I-200, I-205) do not provide sufficient judicial authority for courthouse arrests under the New York law.

“Administrative immigration warrants are not judicial warrants, and therefore do not authorize civil arrests within or around New York’s courthouses.”

This cleanly draws a line between civil and criminal authority.

**🔹 5. New York Is Not Interfering With Federal Enforcement — It Is Simply Not Assisting It**

The judge clarified that states are not required to:

volunteer facilities
facilitate arrests
or act as immigration enforcement partners

This aligns with Supreme Court precedent (Printz v. United States) limiting federal commandeering of state resources.

Judge’s language:

“The federal government cannot compel New York to assist in the enforcement of federal civil immigration law.”

This quote is extremely valuable for defense attorneys nationwide.

🔹 6. ICE Still Has Options — but NOT at Courthouses Without a Judicial Warrant

The judge emphasized that the decision does not obstruct all ICE activity:

“Federal agents remain free to enforce immigration law through means consistent with both federal statutes and the restrictions lawfully imposed by the State of New York.”

Meaning:

ICE may make arrests elsewhere
ICE may use criminal warrants
ICE may conduct operations that do not violate state authority

🔹 7. The State Demonstrated Real Harm — and the Federal Government Did NOT

The judge noted that:

New York provided evidence of harm
ICE did not provide evidence that POCA hindered federal enforcement

“The State has demonstrated a concrete impairment to its court system. The Department of Justice has not shown that the statute meaningfully obstructs federal enforcement.”

This will be cited in litigation involving courthouse arrests in other states.

Summary of the Judge’s Ruling

The court held that:

New York has the sovereign power to regulate courthouse safety & conduct.
ICE civil immigration arrests are prohibited inside and around courthouses without a judicial criminal warrant.
Administrative ICE warrants (I-200, I-205) DO NOT qualify.
The statute does NOT conflict with federal immigration law.
The law does NOT obstruct federal enforcement; it sets location-based limits.
Courthouse arrests create a proven and serious “chilling effect” on access to justice.
Protecting access to courts is a compelling state interest.
Federal government cannot force states to participate in civil immigration enforcement.

11. Resource Directory

GOVERNMENT

USCIS — https://www.uscis.gov
EOIR — https://www.justice.gov/eoir
ICE — https://www.ice.gov
DHS — https://www.dhs.gov
DOJ — https://www.justice.gov
NY State Attorney General — https://ag.ny.gov
NY Unified Court System — https://www.nycourts.gov

MEDIA

LAW & ADVOCACY

Protect Our Courts Act (NY Senate) — https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/A2176
OPDV POCA Summary — https://opdv.ny.gov/protect-our-courts-act
Immigrant Defense Project FAQ — https://www.immigrantdefenseproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Community-FAQ-POCA-EN-1.pdf
PACER (official docket) — https://pacer.uscourts.gov

HERMAN LEGAL GROUP

(all verified)

Removal Defense — https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/removal-defense/
Deportation Defense — https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/deportation-defense/
Know Your Rights — https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/know-your-rights/
Consultation — https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/book-consultation/
Marriage Green Cards — https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/marriage-green-card/

11. Key Takeaways

New York’s Protect Our Courts Act survived a federal challenge.
ICE cannot conduct civil immigration arrests at NY courthouses without a criminal warrant.
This strengthens due process, victim protection, and access to justice.
Ohio and many other states do not have similar protections.
The ruling provides powerful defense tools in immigration court.
Herman Legal Group stands ready to strategize, protect, and defend immigrants facing courthouse risks.

Success Stories

Courthouse Protection vs. Federal Immigration Authority: How New York’s Law Changes the Game

Table of Contents