Federal judge strikes down ICE immigration courthouse arrest policy: what it means for Florida

A federal judge in New York on Thursday, Oct. 1, struck down U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's policy of arresting immigrants when they show up for hearings at immigration courts, a ruling that could change what happens in the hallways of Florida's busy immigration courts in Miami and Orlando. U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel of the Southern District of New York vacated the policy, finding it arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, and reinstated a 2021 guideline that permits such arrests only in very limited circumstances.

The decision matters in Florida because the state is home to some of the country's largest populations of immigrants with pending cases, including thousands of Cubans who arrived at the border in recent years and were released with an I-220A supervision order, humanitarian parole or a pending asylum claim. Many of them must appear in person before an immigration judge, and the arrests at courthouses over the past year turned routine hearings into moments of fear for families across South Florida.

What the judge decided

Castel's final ruling, a 36-page order, took effect immediately. It granted judgment to the immigrant advocacy groups that brought the lawsuit, which reports identify as including The Door and African Communities Together, and it vacated the administration's 2025 courthouse arrest policy as it applies to immigration courts. Rather than simply ordering the government not to enforce the policy against particular plaintiffs, the judge set it aside, which under the Administrative Procedure Act generally means the policy is treated as if it no longer exists.

At the heart of the ruling was the judge's finding that the policy gave ICE agents unrestricted discretion to make arrests at immigration courts without meaningful guidance on when or how to do so. Under federal administrative law, agencies must explain their reasoning and consider the consequences of major policy changes. A policy that lacks a reasoned explanation, or fails to grapple with important problems such as the effect on people's willingness to appear in court, can be struck down as arbitrary and capricious.

By vacating the 2025 approach, the ruling restores a 2021 guideline issued during the Biden administration. That earlier guidance allows civil immigration arrests at or near courthouses only in narrow situations, such as cases involving national security, an imminent risk of death or violence, hot pursuit of a person who poses a public safety threat, or an imminent risk that evidence in a criminal case will be destroyed. Some news reports have described the effect of the order as a nationwide bar on routine arrests at immigration courts.

How the case got here

Arrests at immigration courts became one of the most visible features of the administration's enforcement push in 2025. Agents, sometimes in plain clothes, waited outside courtrooms as government attorneys moved to dismiss cases, then detained people as they walked out. Immigrants who had followed the rules by appearing for their hearings found themselves in detention, sometimes transferred to facilities far from home.

The case before Castel drew additional attention in March, when the Justice Department told the judge in a letter that a 2025 ICE memo it had cited to defend the arrests did not apply to immigration courts. According to reports at the time, the government acknowledged the error and said it regretted it. Critics said the episode showed that ICE had misrepresented its legal authority to the court, an assertion that remains a point of dispute in the litigation.

Castel had earlier issued a temporary stay blocking the policy while the case proceeded, according to reports. Thursday's ruling turned that interim relief into a final decision on the merits.

Florida's immigration courts

Florida has several immigration court locations run by the Justice Department's Executive Office for Immigration Review. The Miami Immigration Court, at One Riverview Square on South Miami Avenue in downtown Miami, handles a large volume of cases for people who are not in detention. The Miami Krome Immigration Court sits inside the Krome North Processing Center in southwest Miami-Dade County and hears cases for people held by ICE. The Orlando Immigration Court, on North Orange Avenue downtown, covers a large share of the state's counties, including much of Central and North Florida. There is also a hearing location at the Broward Transitional Center in Pompano Beach for detained cases.

The non-detained courts in Miami and Orlando are where the ruling is likely to be felt most. Those are the places where people living in the community, many with jobs, children in school and pending applications, come for scheduled hearings. Immigration attorneys in South Florida have reported that fear of arrest kept some clients from showing up, a decision that can carry severe consequences because a missed hearing can lead to an order of removal in absentia.

Detained courts such as Krome operate differently, since the people appearing there are already in custody. The ruling's practical effect is primarily on arrests of people who arrive voluntarily for their hearings.

What it means for Cubans with I-220A

Few groups have followed the courthouse arrest fight as closely as Cuban migrants in Florida who hold an I-220A. The form is an order of release on recognizance issued by immigration authorities. It allows a person to live in the United States under certain conditions while their case moves forward, but it is not parole and it is not permanent legal status. That distinction is crucial because the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966 generally allows Cubans who were inspected and admitted or paroled to apply for a green card after a year in the country, and many I-220A holders have been told they do not qualify because they were never paroled.

As a result, many Cubans with I-220A remain in removal proceedings and must appear before immigration judges, often while pursuing asylum. Others in Florida have humanitarian parole or pending asylum cases that also require court appearances. For these families, the ruling may reduce the risk that a scheduled hearing becomes an arrest, though it does not change the underlying legal status of anyone's case or prevent ICE from making arrests in other settings.

A separate legal fight over I-220A status is unfolding in Miami. In the Southern District of Florida, U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Becerra in September denied the government's motion to dismiss Bello-Rubio v. Noem, a lawsuit brought by 992 Cubans with I-220A forms. The core question in that case is whether an I-220A should be treated as the equivalent of parole for purposes of the Cuban Adjustment Act. According to reports, the judge has also considered whether to certify the case as a class action, and the government faces deadlines this month to respond to key issues. That case is unrelated to Castel's ruling, but together they represent the two legal battles that I-220A holders in Florida are watching most closely.

Questions about scope

One of the biggest questions for Florida is how broadly the ruling will be applied in practice. Vacatur of an agency policy under the Administrative Procedure Act typically applies to the policy itself, not just to the people who sued, and several outlets have described the decision as having nationwide effect. Still, immigration attorneys caution that agencies sometimes interpret court orders narrowly, and that ICE could argue it retains authority to make arrests under the reinstated 2021 guideline in particular cases.

The ruling also applies to immigration courts specifically. It does not address arrests at state courthouses, such as county courthouses where people appear on traffic or criminal matters, which are governed by different policies and, in Florida, by state laws that require local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. Florida has some of the most aggressive state-level immigration enforcement laws in the country, and those laws are not affected by Castel's decision.

Nor does the ruling stop ICE from arresting people at their homes, workplaces or during traffic stops, or from detaining people at scheduled check-in appointments at ICE field offices, such as the agency's office in Miramar. Those check-ins are separate from immigration court hearings and have been a source of concern for many Florida immigrants.

What immigrants and families should know

Immigration lawyers generally advise clients to continue attending every scheduled hearing. Missing a court date is one of the fastest ways to end up with a removal order, and the ruling is designed in part to make it safer for people to comply with their obligations. Attorneys also recommend that people carry copies of their documents, including any I-220A, parole papers or asylum filing receipts, and keep a lawyer's contact information on hand.

Families should be wary of anyone offering guarantees about how the ruling affects individual cases. The decision changes the rules for when ICE may make arrests at immigration courts, but it does not grant status, cancel removal orders or end proceedings. Legitimate legal help is available from licensed attorneys and accredited representatives at nonprofit organizations, and immigrants should be cautious of so-called notarios who are not authorized to practice immigration law.

Community groups in Miami-Dade, Broward and Central Florida have said they will be monitoring courthouses to see whether arrests stop. Reports of continued arrests are likely to become evidence in further litigation.

What's next

The administration could appeal the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and could ask for the decision to be paused while an appeal proceeds. As of Saturday, there was no confirmed public announcement of an appeal. Given how central courthouse arrests have been to the administration's enforcement strategy, an appeal would not be surprising, and the outcome could eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

In Florida, the key things to watch are whether ICE activity at the Miami and Orlando immigration courts changes in the coming days, whether the agency issues new guidance to agents consistent with the 2021 policy, and whether any appeal leads to a stay that would revive the arrests. Separately, the government's upcoming filings in Bello-Rubio v. Noem in Miami will offer the next signal in the long-running dispute over whether Cubans with I-220A can pursue permanent residency.

For now, thousands of Florida immigrants with pending cases have a new measure of protection when they walk into court, even as the broader legal fight over enforcement continues.