Man arrested day after judge bans most arrests outside New York immigration courts
apnews.com
A judge barred federal agents from routinely detaining people who show up for proceedings in New York City’s immigration courts, saying that people shouldn’t have to risk arrest to exercise their legal right to pursue an asylum claim or attend a deportation hearing.

Federal agents can no longer make arrests without exceptional circumstances in and around three Manhattan buildings where immigration proceedings occur, a judge ruled Monday.

The decision by U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel brings an abrupt halt to a practice begun under the Trump administration that enabled agents to take into custody individuals who follow requirements to appear before immigration judges.

The arrests have resulted in dramatic scenes in courthouse hallways as those being detained were sometimes pulled away from emotional family members.

  • N0t_5ure@lemmy.world
    16·
    11 days ago

    Castel also noted that government lawyers recently reversed their position, saying they’ve learned that 2025 policies regarding arrests in and around courthouses set by the Trump administration did not apply to immigration courts after all.

    The judge, who last year had declined to ban the practice, said the new position by government lawyers meant it was necessary to “correct a clear error and prevent a manifest injustice.”

    So, last year the issue came up, the government represented to the court one set of facts, which resulted in a ruling in favor of the government. Now, a year later, the government concedes that their initial position was wrong (presumably because their bullshit is no longer tenable), which obviously caused a “manifest injustice”, and the court reverses it’s position. However, there is no discussion of sanctions or any consequences whatsoever for the prior misrepresentation. I’m an attorney, and having dealt with mischief many times from opposing counsel, in my opinion the biggest problem with our legal system is that it relies on the participants to act in good faith. When they don’t, there are few consequences, so bad actors gain an advantage from bad conduct, which provides incentive to continue the conduct and undermine justice.