A federal judge in New York just upheld the state’s Protect Our Courts Act, a law that bars ICE from making civil immigration arrests in and around state courthouses without a judicial warrant.

For years, advocates have warned that courthouse arrests scare immigrants away from the legal system, especially survivors of domestic violence, trafficking, and wage theft who rely on courts for protection. New York’s legislature responded by creating a zone where civil immigration arrests are sharply limited. And now, with this ruling, that zone has been confirmed as lawful.

The reasoning is straightforward but important: states have a legitimate interest in ensuring their courts remain open and functional. If people fear showing up, the entire system suffers. So New York drew a boundary around how the justice system must operate within state lines. The judge agreed, saying the federal government can enforce immigration law, but cannot interfere with a state’s ability to run its own courts.

Practically, what changes?

For immigrants, the message is simple: you can appear in New York courts with more confidence than you could just a few years ago. That doesn’t mean all immigration risks disappear, this isn’t a shield from federal law, but it does reduce the fear that a traffic ticket hearing or family court date will turn into a surprise detention.

This ruling also signals something bigger. States are increasingly drawing lines around how federal enforcement interacts with local institutions: schools, hospitals, shelters, and now courts. These aren’t attempts to “nullify” immigration law. They’re attempts to keep civic systems running without fear swallowing them whole.

It’s a reminder that immigration law is a space where federal authority meets the lived reality of millions. And rulings like this one show how states, carefully and sometimes courageously, shape that space.

The New York courthouse decision opens the door to a larger question: how far can states go when drawing boundaries around ICE enforcement? The answer is surprisingly nuanced—and more flexible than many assume.

The federal government controls immigration. That part is clear. But states control how their institutions function: their courts, their police procedures, their licensing rules, their public services. When states regulate those systems, and immigration enforcement gets affected as a side effect, courts often say that’s allowed.

That’s why laws like:

…have survived judicial scrutiny again and again.

Where states can’t go is into the territory of rewriting immigration law itself. They can’t grant status, create new visa categories, or block federal agents from doing their jobs everywhere. But they can say: “Here is how our system operates, and here are the rules inside our institutions.”

Think of it like two overlapping circles: federal immigration power and state police power. Most conflicts live in that overlapped area. Courts tend to ask: Is the state trying to run immigration policy… or just trying to run its own house?

So far, states have more room in that house than many expected.

Connect with me at my LinkedIn account and follow Notice to All’s X (previously Twitter) account!

Also, if you’d love my expertise as an immigration attorney, feel free to book a call with me.

If you’ve enjoyed our newsletter and found it helpful, please share Notice to All with a friend. It’ll means the world to us! 💛

Also, Edgar (my brother and editor) has just released tini.la. Share your links and grow your email list from day 1. Check out his page tini.la/edgar, you can have your own, too!

Finally, visit our Custom GPT Immigration Law Expert Shelly: an AI chatbot designed by The Notice to All Team. AI Shelly has all the answers to your immigration questions (not a replacement for professional consulting, though. AI isn’t that good). A Gemini Gem version is also available!

Until next time, enjoy the Fall breeze! 🍂