A federal judge dismissed the Justice Department’s suit against New York’s Protect Our Courts Act, finding the Tenth Amendment shields the state’s refusal to assist civil immigration enforcement. U.S. District Judge Mae D’Agostino said federal law does not compel state cooperation. The 2020 law bars most courthouse immigration arrests without a judge-signed warrant. New York’s attorney general praised the ruling.
A federal judge dismissed the Justice Department’s lawsuit seeking to invalidate New York’s law that bars most immigration arrests at state courthouses, holding that the federal government cannot compel state cooperation under the Tenth Amendment. U.S. District Judge Mae D’Agostino granted New York’s motion to dismiss late Monday, finding that the state’s decision not to participate in civil immigration enforcement is constitutionally protected.
The suit targeted the Protect Our Courts Act, a 2020 law enacted after enforcement actions at courthouses during President Donald Trump’s first term. The statute bars federal immigration officials from arresting people who are coming and going from New York courthouses or who are in court for proceedings unless the agents possess a warrant signed by a judge. D’Agostino noted that the law does not apply to federal immigration courts.
In her opinion, the judge wrote that the United States “fails to identify any federal law mandating that state and local officials generally assist or cooperate with federal immigration enforcement efforts.” She added, “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.”
The ruling frames the dispute as a constitutional allocation of power. D’Agostino’s reading emphasizes the Tenth Amendment’s role in limiting federal authority to require state action, and it treats New York’s law as an exercise of the state’s choice not to become a federal enforcement instrument. The decision thus underscores tensions between national immigration objectives and state control over local institutions such as courthouses.
The Justice Department had argued that the state law and two related executive orders frustrated federal immigration enforcement. The AP report said the department maintained that those measures were unconstitutional because they obstructed the execution of federal immigration authorities. A Justice Department spokesperson reiterated that “President Trump’s immigration enforcement agenda is a top national security and public safety priority that this Department of Justice will continue to vigorously defend whenever challenged in court.”
New York Attorney General Letitia James hailed the dismissal. Her office, which argued for dismissal, said it was defending the “dignity and rights of immigrant communities.” James said in a statement that “everyone deserves to seek justice without fear” and that the ruling “ensures that anyone can use New York’s state courts without being targeted by federal authorities.”
The article noted that the lawsuit was one of several legal actions brought by the Republican administration challenging state and local policies on immigration enforcement. It did not, however, supply details about other named cases or the outcomes of related suits. The opinion focused on the constitutional principle that Congress may not conscript state officials to enforce federal regulatory schemes.
The decision raises practical separation-of-powers questions for both federal immigration enforcement and state court operations. By insulating state courthouses from most warrantless immigration arrests, the law aims to preserve access to state justice systems for litigants, witnesses and others who may fear federal enforcement. The judge’s ruling confirms that a state may set boundaries on how federal enforcement interacts with state-run facilities so long as the state is not impeding federal authority where Congress has lawfully preempted state action.
The article did not include statements from civil-liberties organizations or other advocacy groups. It also did not describe any immediate operational changes in courthouse security protocols or the implementation mechanics of the Protect Our Courts Act following the ruling.
Next steps in the litigation were not specified in the report. The Justice Department’s statement affirms a continued commitment to its enforcement agenda; the article did not state whether the department intended to appeal the ruling. The decision could be subject to further proceedings if the government pursues appellate review, but the AP report did not provide a timetable or filing notice.
District Judge Mae D’Agostino’s dismissal compels a closer look at how federal and state authorities will coordinate around immigration enforcement at civic institutions. The ruling also reinforces the continuing role of the Tenth Amendment in disputes over federal directives and state cooperation. The article concluded by leaving open whether the Justice Department will seek appellate review and by noting that the case was part of a broader pattern of federal challenges to state and local immigration policies.
Lila Hayes serves as a Staff Writer for Just Right News, where she anchors the “Courts, Law, and Constitutional Order” beat. Her work is defined by a steadfast commitment to the foundational principles of the American republic and a rigorous defense of the legal frameworks that ensure national stability. As a primary voice for the outlet, she provides readers with a clear-eyed analysis of the judiciary, focusing on the importance of originalism and the preservation of the separation of powers.
Lila’s perspective was forged in the American heartland. Raised in St. Louis, Missouri, she grew up in a Hispanic household where the values of hard work, faith, and respect for the law were paramount. Her upbringing instilled in her a deep appreciation for the American Dream and the legal protections that make it possible. This Missouri background remains a cornerstone of her reporting, providing a grounded, common-sense counter-narrative to the often-insular legal circles of the coastal elite. She understands that the decisions made in high-court chambers have real-world consequences for families and small business owners across the country.
At Just Right News, Lila has become widely recognized for her signature feature series, “The Rulebook of Power.” In this ongoing project, she delves into the mechanics of the federal government, examining how administrative overreach and judicial activism can threaten the delicate balance of the Constitution. She approaches her beat with the tenacity of a veteran journalist and the precision of a legal scholar, consistently advocating for a judiciary that interprets the law as written rather than legislating from the bench. For Lila, the Constitution is not a “living” document subject to the whims of modern social trends; it is a fixed standard that ensures the government remains the servant of the people, not their master.
Now based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Lila finds herself at the very epicenter of American constitutional history. Living and working in the city where the Founders drafted the documents she defends daily provides a constant source of inspiration. The historic halls and landmarks of Philadelphia serve as a daily reminder of the high stakes involved in her reporting. Her presence in the city allows her to bridge the gap between the historical intent of the law and its contemporary application, ensuring that the legacy of the Founding Fathers remains central to the national conversation.
Throughout her career, Lila has remained dedicated to the idea that a free society requires an informed citizenry and a transparent legal system. Her reporting is more than just a collection of headlines; it is a defense of the constitutional order that has sustained the nation for over two centuries. By focusing on the “Rulebook of Power,” she ensures that her readers understand not just what is happening in the courtrooms, but why those decisions matter for the future of American liberty. Lila Hayes continues to be a vital voice for those who believe that the law should be a shield for the citizen and a constraint on the state.