FOLLOW US

Essential Case Highlights

• Federal-State Clash Intensifies: DOJ sues New York, Governor Hochul, and Attorney General Letitia James, challenging the constitutionality of the “Protect Our Courts Act” and related executive orders.
• Criminal Penalties for ICE Agents: The Act threatens federal agents with criminal and civil liability for performing their duties in or near state courthouses.
• Supremacy Clause in Focus: At the heart of the case is whether states can obstruct or penalize federal immigration enforcement under the U.S. Constitution.

By Samuel Lopez – USA Herald

The Justice Department is escalating its legal battle with New York, taking direct aim at Governor Kathleen Hochul and Attorney General Letitia James over a state law that, according to federal officials, goes beyond sanctuary policy and ventures into the territory of criminalizing immigration enforcement. At stake: the federal government’s power to carry out immigration laws inside the Empire State’s courthouses—and the very limits of state resistance to federal authority.

NEW YORK, N.Y. - On June 12, 2025, the DOJ filed suit in federal court against New York, Hochul, and James, seeking to block enforcement of the Protect Our Courts Act (POCA) and two executive orders. The complaint accuses state leaders of “obstructing the execution of federal immigration authorities” by criminalizing civil immigration arrests at or near courthouses, and forbidding state officials from sharing information with ICE.

The complaint’s opening lines cut to the heart of the matter:

“The State of New York has issued a blanket prohibition, through its ‘Protect Our Courts Act,’ purporting to block civil immigration arrests and shield aliens, including those subject to lawful detention and removal orders, while they attend or travel to or from New York court proceedings.”

What Does the Protect Our Courts Act Do?

Passed initially in 2020 and now expanded, POCA prohibits civil immigration arrests for anyone “attending a court proceeding” or any “family or household member” (a definition, the DOJ argues is so broad it includes former roommates and virtually anyone in an “intimate relationship” with the party) unless there is a judicial warrant. Notably, POCA makes it a crime to arrest someone in violation of this law, exposing ICE agents to prosecution for contempt of court or false imprisonment, with penalties of up to four years in prison.

Willful violations of POCA or related court orders also expose agents—and anyone assisting them—to civil lawsuits for damages and attorneys’ fees, brought by the New York Attorney General or private individuals.

DOJ: New York’s Law Directly Obstructs Federal Immigration Mandates

The federal government’s argument is rooted in the Supremacy Clause, which makes federal law “the supreme Law of the Land.” According to the DOJ, New York’s blanket ban “poses intolerable obstacles to federal immigration enforcement and directly regulate[s] and discriminate[s] against the Federal Government.”

The complaint cites Arizona v. United States, reiterating that only Congress—not states—can set the terms for immigration enforcement:

“The Government of the United States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens,” (quoting Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 394 (2012)).

Crucially, DOJ lawyers argue that POCA’s requirement for a judicial warrant, and its threat of prosecution, “impede those officers’ ability to discharge their official duties.” The complaint also highlights the Laken Riley Act of 2025, which mandates federal detention for certain criminal aliens, further strengthening the federal position.

Real-World Consequences: ICE Hamstrung, Criminal Aliens Released

The DOJ complaint alleges that New York’s law has forced ICE to forgo arrests of noncitizens accused of violent crimes because those individuals had scheduled court appearances:

“Federal immigration authorities have refrained from apprehending aliens whom those authorities knew had scheduled appearances in New York court related to heinous crimes—including rape, sexual assault, and robbery. … Many of those aliens still have not been apprehended by federal officials and thus remain at large today.”

The government contends this results in dangerous individuals being released into the community and additional risks to public safety.

Executive Orders 170 & 170.1: Shielding Information From ICE

Beyond courthouse arrests, the lawsuit also targets New York executive orders that bar state employees from sharing vital information with federal immigration authorities, such as arrest reports, investigative files, or even basic details about a person’s presence in a state facility. The DOJ claims this “prevents basic coordination between New York and federal officials,” further undermining federal enforcement and raising the risk of conflict and confusion between agencies.

Constitutional Stakes: Who Holds the Power?

The complaint summarizes the gravity of the federal position:

“The activities of the Federal Government are free from regulation by any state.”
—Mayo v. United States, 319 U.S. 441, 445 (1943),

The DOJ is seeking a declaratory judgment that POCA and New York’s executive orders are invalid under the Supremacy Clause and a permanent injunction blocking enforcement (Complaint, p. 16, Prayer for Relief).

New York’s Defense: Protecting Immigrants and Justice Access

State lawmakers and supporters of POCA argue the law is designed to “protect immigrants from warrantless ICE arrests” and ensure access to the judicial system. In 2020, a key sponsor stated:

“This new law is a powerful rebuke to the outgoing Trump administration and their immigration policies that have undermined our judicial system.”
(Complaint, p. 8, footnote 2)

Supporters argue that courthouse arrests deter immigrants from participating in the legal process, ultimately making communities less safe.

What Comes Next

This lawsuit is now set to become a national test of whether states can criminalize federal immigration enforcement inside their borders, or if the Supremacy Clause bars such state action. The court’s eventual decision could reshape the legal landscape for “sanctuary” policies across the United States.

For exclusive legal analysis and reporting, join me on Patreon at "Legal Insights and Strategies by Samuel Lopez."

For more:
🔗 Follow USA Herald on X @RealUSAHerald