State of New York

Background

The State of New York and Eric Gonzalez, identified in the opinion as the Kings County District Attorney, challenged ICE’s policy of conducting civil immigration arrests in and around New York State courthouses. Before 2017, ICE guidance generally limited courthouse arrests to narrower categories of high-priority targets. After a 2017 presidential executive order and Department of Homeland Security memorandum, ICE officers understood those materials to remove the earlier limits. ICE later issued Directive No. 11072.1 in January 2018, which formalized a broader policy.

The record showed a substantial increase in enforcement actions at or near New York State courthouses after 2016, although the parties used different methods to count those actions. The plaintiffs presented evidence that courthouse arrests caused litigants and witnesses to fear attending court and disrupted court proceedings. The defendants disputed some of the plaintiffs’ descriptions. The Court said it did not need to resolve those factual disputes because the motions could be decided on legal issues.

Claims and legal standards

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment, a ruling without a trial when the material facts do not require one, on two claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

Count One alleged that ICE’s policy exceeded its authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), making the policy invalid under APA section 706(2)(C). The plaintiffs argued that the INA incorporates a common-law privilege against civil arrest for people present in courthouses, on courthouse grounds, or necessarily traveling to or from court proceedings.

Count Two alleged that ICE adopted the policy in an arbitrary and capricious manner under APA section 706(2)(A). This standard requires an agency to give a reasoned explanation, especially when changing an established policy.

The plaintiffs also asserted a Tenth Amendment claim, arguing that ICE’s policy improperly infringed on New York’s state sovereignty. Because the APA claims independently supported all requested relief, the Court did not decide that claim and treated it as moot.

Count One: statutory authority

Judge Rakoff relied on the Court’s earlier opinion denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss. He concluded that longstanding English and American decisions recognized a privilege against civil arrest for people attending court or necessarily traveling to and from court. Those decisions supported the privilege both because it encourages parties and witnesses to attend proceedings and because it allows courts to function properly.

The Court concluded that the privilege applies to civil immigration arrest and detention, which it described as an intrusive form of civil arrest. It also concluded that the INA incorporates the privilege into federal law. The Court rejected the defendants’ arguments that the INA instead displaced the privilege, including arguments based on other INA provisions, legislative history, and a Second Circuit decision concerning detention after a federal criminal defendant had been granted bail.

The Court held that the INA incorporates the common-law privilege for people present in New York State courthouses, on courthouse grounds, or necessarily traveling to or from court proceedings. It therefore granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on Count One.

Count Two: agency procedure

The Court found that ICE had changed its courthouse-arrest policy in 2017 and largely codified that change in the 2018 Directive. Although the Directive modestly narrowed the policy by generally protecting accompanying family members, friends, and witnesses from arrest absent special circumstances, it did not explain the broader change that began in 2017.

The administrative record contained no reasoned explanation for the major expansion of courthouse arrests. The Court found that ICE had relied primarily on its mistaken view that the 2017 executive order and implementing memorandum required the expansion. Those documents did not specifically address courthouse arrests and directed ICE to use lawful means to enforce immigration laws. Because the courthouse arrests violated the privilege incorporated into the INA, the Court concluded that the executive order did not require them.

The Court also found that the Directive’s references to safety risks and difficulties transferring people from state custody did not explain how ICE weighed those asserted benefits against the policy’s harms. It held that both the 2017 policy change and the 2018 Directive were arbitrary and capricious under APA section 706(2)(A), and granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on Count Two.

Disposition

The Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on Counts One and Two and granted the requested declaratory and injunctive relief. It declared ICE’s courthouse-arrest policy, as embodied in the Directive, illegal. It enjoined ICE from conducting civil arrests on the premises or grounds of New York State courthouses and from conducting such arrests of anyone required to travel to a New York State courthouse as a party or witness to a lawsuit. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment.