ICE Courthouse Arrests Persisted Despite Court Injunction
Federal agents continued detaining individuals at Manhattan courts after a judge banned the practice in May 2026.
Updated on Oct. 9, 2026 in Immigration
Following a July 2025 detention of Jefferson Velazquez, federal agents continued to arrest migrants at Manhattan immigration facilities. These actions persisted even after a May 2026 judicial injunction prohibited such civil enforcement.
Why it matters
The enforcement strategy shifted to target migrants with active asylum claims, fueled by a $75 billion funding boost to ICE under President Donald Trump. This policy created a significant conflict between federal immigration enforcement and the judicial system's integrity.
Federal agencies received $75 billion in direct funding as part of a $170 billion total allocation for immigration enforcement. Non-jail-based ICE arrests have surged by 212% since the current administration took office.
The players
President Donald Trump
He is the current President of the United States who signed the $75 billion immigration enforcement spending bill.
P. Kevin Castel
He is the federal judge who issued the injunction blocking civil arrests at Manhattan immigration court facilities.
Jefferson Velazquez
He was a migrant detained by ICE agents inside a Manhattan immigration court in July 2025.
Matar Ndiaye
He was detained by ICE agents on July 16, 2026, after attending a court hearing.
The details
Federal agents often operated without uniforms or badges while intercepting individuals in courthouse corridors. Federal prosecutors later admitted to submitting inaccurate legal arguments to the court regarding these arrest policies.
Timeline
July 4, 2025: President Trump signed the immigration enforcement spending bill.
May 18, 2026: Judge P. Kevin Castel issued an injunction against courthouse arrests.
July 16, 2026: Matar Ndiaye was detained following a court hearing.
Political Context
The administration's aggressive courthouse enforcement follows a pattern set by the One Big Beautiful Bill, which shifted federal resources toward broad immigration enforcement. Opposition groups argue these tactics undermine judicial due process by deterring asylum seekers from attending mandatory hearings.
The ongoing enforcement in court corridors creates significant legal risks for New York City residents seeking asylum or attending mandatory immigration hearings. Local businesses and commuters near facilities like 26 Federal Plaza or 201 Varick Street may continue to face increased security presence.
The takeaway
The conflict highlights the friction between federal agency mandates and judicial oversight in public spaces. Residents should be aware that civil enforcement policies can evolve rapidly, impacting access to legal proceedings for the migrant community.
Further reading
For more on local enforcement trends, visit the Immigration section.
Source note: This article includes information reported by Latin Times.
