A federal judge in Albany, New York, just handed a significant setback to federal immigration enforcement by dismissing a Trump administration lawsuit against a state law shielding unauthorized migrants from arrests at state courthouses.
The Associated Press reported that this ruling, delivered by U.S. District Judge Mae D’Agostino, affirms New York’s controversial policy to limit federal immigration officials’ ability to detain individuals at state judicial facilities without a judicial warrant.
Back during President Donald Trump’s first term, immigration enforcement actions at courthouses sparked outrage among progressive circles, leading to the enactment of New York’s 2020 Protect Our Courts Act.
This state law specifically bars federal immigration agents from arresting individuals entering, exiting, or participating in proceedings at state courthouses unless they possess a warrant signed by a judge.
Important to note, this restriction doesn’t extend to federal immigration courts, keeping the scope narrowly focused on state facilities.
The Trump administration, through the Department of Justice, fired back with a lawsuit, claiming this law, along with two related state executive orders, unconstitutionally hindered federal immigration efforts.
Judge D’Agostino, however, wasn’t buying that argument, ruling late on a Monday that New York’s refusal to assist in civil immigration enforcement falls squarely under the protection of the 10th Amendment.
Her decision pointedly notes the federal government’s lack of authority to force state or local officials into supporting its regulatory schemes— a polite but firm reminder of states’ rights.
“Fundamentally, the United States fails to identify any federal law mandating that state and local officials generally assist or cooperate with federal immigration enforcement efforts,” D’Agostino wrote in her ruling.
“Nor could it,” she continued. “No such federal laws exist because the Tenth Amendment prohibits Congress from conscripting state and local officials and resources to assist with federal regulatory schemes, like immigration enforcement.”
While her logic is grounded in constitutional principle, one can’t help but wonder if this sets a precedent for states to opt out of other federal priorities— a slippery slope for national unity on critical issues like border security.
On the other side of the aisle, New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, celebrated the ruling as a victory for access to justice, pushing back against what she sees as overreach by federal authorities.
“Everyone deserves to seek justice without fear,” James stated. “This ruling ensures that anyone can use New York’s state courts without being targeted by federal authorities.”
While her sentiment tugs at the heartstrings, it sidesteps the reality that federal immigration enforcement is a cornerstone of national security— a priority that shouldn’t be so easily dismissed by state-level idealism.