The Justice Department is actively working to keep hidden the rationale behind Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s arrests of five immigrants at New York courthouses, despite a federal judge’s order to halt the practice. This ongoing legal dispute highlights the tensions between immigration enforcement and the rights of immigrants in sanctuary cities.
In a recent legal filing, DOJ lawyers argued against disclosing ICE’s specific reasons for detaining the five individuals at 26 Federal Plaza in lower Manhattan. This comes after U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel ordered a stop to such arrests in May. The case has drawn attention to the complexities of immigration enforcement in urban centers with strong immigrant communities.
ICE Defends Courthouse Arrests as Safer Alternative
ICE officials have justified the courthouse arrests by claiming they are safer for officers than street arrests. Roberto Rodriguez, acting supervisory detention and deportation officer at ICE, stated in a sworn declaration that at-large arrests in sanctuary cities like New York tend to trigger protests and intervention by agitators and bystanders, making alternative locations in New York unsafe. According to Rodriguez, the courthouse was deemed the safest place for these arrests.
This defense comes after immigrant rights nonprofits accused ICE of potentially defying the court-ordered stay on arrests at 26 Federal Plaza. Since the stay was ordered, there have been at least five arrests at the courthouse, according to lawyers for the nonprofits. The back-and-forth between the government and immigrant rights groups is part of a long-fought lawsuit challenging the validity of ICE courthouse arrests.
The Legal Battle Over ICE’s Arrest Practices
The lawsuit was initially filed by African Communities Together and The Door, two immigrant rights organizations, in response to ICE’s violent public arrests that disrupted families attending appointments at New york city immigration courthouses last summer. The plaintiffs argued that these arrests chilled access to courts and impeded justice.
Initially, Judge Castel sided with the government, allowing arrests to continue while both sides made their arguments. However, in a surprising turn earlier this year, the DOJ acknowledged misinterpreting a policy memo that justified the arrests. This led Judge Castel to enforce a preliminary halt on arrests in May. Despite the stay, courthouse arrests continued, albeit at a slower pace.
Of the five arrests counted by attorneys, three individuals were immediately released without explanation by federal immigration authorities. Two men arrested in late June remain detained, awaiting the outcome of habeas corpus petitions in federal court. One of the arrested immigrants was from the Dominican Republic, and another was from Ecuador.
ICE’s Justification for Arrests Under the Stay
ICE contended that the arrests conformed with narrow exceptions to the stay, such as imminent risk of death and threats to national security or public safety that could not be safely arrested elsewhere. The Department of Homeland Security stated that ICE did NOT violate any court orders and that these were lawful arrests.
However, plaintiffs’ attorneys argued that at least one person arrested had no criminal history apart from a trespassing charge from when he crossed the border. They demanded that ICE provide proof of how such arrests complied with the May order and how officers have been trained on the latest guidelines. The government’s response was that plaintiffs’ request for discovery is not necessary and therefore should be denied.
The sworn declaration by Rodriguez mentioned the May 19 arrest of an immigrant New Yorker, stating that the courthouse was the safest place for his arrest without providing further details. For the other four arrests, Rodriguez stated that ICE assessed their threat to public safety and that the arrests were approved by the Field Office Director prior to taking each person into custody.
Attorneys for the Trump administration also mentioned that ICE had sent email communications to New York immigration officers reminding them of the new guidelines under the stay. However, they refused to provide any further explanation for the arrests. A response by lawyers for The Door and ACT is expected by Thursday, according to the federal court website.
