A Democrat-aligned federal judge in Albany has dismissed the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) lawsuit against New York over state laws restricting civil immigration arrests in courthouses.
The ruling delivers a significant setback to the Trump administration’s push to dismantle sanctuary-style protections.
The 41-page decision was issued by U.S. District Judge Mae A. D’Agostino, a Barack Obama appointee.
The ruling upheld New York’s Protect Our Courts Act (POCA) as well as Executive Orders 170 and 170.1.
The DOJ had argued these laws violated the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause by interfering with federal immigration enforcement.
However, D’Agostino rejected those claims outright.
New York, she wrote, was acting to “protect its sovereign interests in the face of undue federal interference.”
In a sharp rebuke, the activist judge added that the federal government’s own filings “make plain its desire to commandeer New York’s resources to aid in federal immigration efforts.”
POCA, signed into law in 2020, was crafted in response to the surge of ICE arrests in state courthouses during President Donald Trump’s first term.
The law bars civil immigration arrests of individuals attending court proceedings, including defendants, witnesses, family members, and other participants, unless agents possess a judicial warrant.
Violators can face charges such as contempt or even false imprisonment, with penalties of up to four years in prison.
New York’s Executive Orders 170 and 170.1 take the protections further.
EO 170 (2017) restricts state employees from sharing immigration status information with federal authorities unless legally required.
EO 170.1 (2018) bans civil arrests in state facilities without a judicial warrant.
The judge wrote plainly:
“The Court agrees with Defendants that the United States’ preemption challenges to these Executive Orders fail because neither executive order conflicts with federal law.”
The DOJ’s lawsuit, filed in June, claimed these measures obstructed federal operations under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
New York moved to dismiss the case in August and was backed by amicus briefs from former judges, district attorneys, and advocacy groups.
D’Agostino sided with the state, referencing prior cases, including a pivotal 2019 ruling, affirming that states are not required to assist federal immigration enforcement under the 10th Amendment.
The Trump administration has repeatedly warned that sanctuary-style policies shield criminal aliens and endanger the public.
Attorney General Pam Bondi underscored that stance earlier this year, saying:
“Sanctuary policies impede law enforcement and put American citizens at risk by design.
“The Department of Justice will continue bringing litigation against sanctuary jurisdictions and work closely with the Department of Homeland Security to eradicate these harmful policies around the country.”
The ruling means New York’s courthouse sanctuary measures remain firmly in place, and federal immigration officers will continue to face significant restrictions when attempting to conduct civil arrests in state judicial facilities.
The DOJ has not yet indicated whether it will appeal.
READ MORE – Judge Rules Democrat Rep LaMonica McIver Must Stand Trial for Criminal Charges
Our comment section is restricted to members of the Slay News community only.
To join, create a free account HERE.
If you are already a member, log in HERE.