The Erosion of Due Process: An Invisible Justice in New York’s Immigration System

In October 2025, the New York Civil Liberties Union, ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, and Make the Road New York filed African Communities Together v. Lyons, a lawsuit against ICE challenging the agency’s courthouse arrest practices, under which hundreds of immigrants in New York City were detained during court hearings despite having no criminal records. The high arrest rate in the state is a huge enforcement tactic deployed by ICE that has expanded significantly. The recent rulings from the court provide proof the country needs a more powerful state protection in our society and a more thought-out community for immigrants. The ICE enforcement in New York City has been characterized by mass courthouse arrest rates, limited legal aid, and defied state protections. Recent court rulings expose the due process crisis in New York’s immigration enforcement system, revealing the urgent need for stronger state protections to shelter immigrant access to justice.

Recent updates in New York City according to Reuters in November 2025 show that a federal judge upheld New York’s Protect Our Courts Act, which restricts civil immigration arrests at state courthouses unless ICE possesses a judicial criminal warrant. At the same time, ICE raids have continued, revealing tension between federal enforcement practices and state efforts to protect immigrants in courthouse settings. With the deferral of federal supremacy in immigration enforcement, the rulings have weakened state-level protections, allowing ICE to have an expansion of presence in judicial spaces originally considered safe for due process. In New York v. U.S. Immigration and ICE, the ruling depicted the federal government’s power over immigration enforcement, granting ICE the ability to carry with the court rulings and arrests. This decision revealed the problematic usage of overreaching authority under former Governor Kathy Hochul. Around 460 arrests brought tensions between federal and state official authorities. This high rate of courthouse arrests has been the greatest in the nation, with most of those arrested having no previous criminal history. The conflict brings out key differences between the priorities of federal authorities and state efforts to protect immigrant rights within local judicial spaces. New York Attorney General Letitia James submitted an amicus brief asserting courthouse arrests create a “chilling effect”, which discourages victims and witnesses from appearing in court for fear of being detained by federal agents To build onto this, critics argue that the ruling places communities of immigrants in an indefensible position, as compliance with the legal system reveals individuals to enforcement and detention, undermining the access to justice.

Advocacy groups' litigation against ICE’s courthouse system signals a new legal front in the battle for immigrant rights. The New York Civil Liberties Union and the American Immigration Council demanded that the ICE agency release the detailed records of courthouse arrests and case dismissals under the Freedom of Information Act. The argument centers on the premise that when enforcement actions are undisclosed, immigrants do not have the ability to adequately prepare legal defenses or exercise their constitutional rights. Traditionally, court cases like Zadvydas v Davis (2001) affirmed that the immigration actions must comply with constitutional limits, including due process and judicial review. However, ICE has refused to release information, and the court has been willing to defer to federal authority, signaling a troubling transition. Executive discretion is increasingly overriding established precedent, which leads to the weakening of the judiciary’s role in enforcing procedural safeguards. The normalization of unpredictability has brought these actions to threaten established legal standards in which immigrants’ access to justice is subordinated to enforcement priorities rather than the law.

The New York Focus reports that detainees are consistently unable to access phone calls with family members or meet with an attorney for extended periods of time. The American Immigration Council states that these practices violate an individual's rights to counsel and informed consent. Beyond domestic law, international human rights frameworks, such as Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, articulate due process systems, including access to legal counsel and notice of charges. This proves the United States has formally endorsed but does not consistently apply within its immigration detention system. Over 61,000 detainees nationwide have experienced serious violations of due process protections. With these restrictions, the legal safeguard procedures meant to protect detainees are effectively weakened. The structure  supposed to ensure access to counsel and fair hearings is now being ignored, undermining precedents such as Zadvydas v. Davis (2001), which affirmed that immigration detention must comply with constitutional limits and respect the due process structure. 

The federal cutbacks to legal aid programs have deepened inequality in access to justice across the United States. On March 22, 2025, the White House halted the funding for legal aid programs assisting unaccompanied migrant children, leaving thousands without representation during asylum and deportation proceedings. This rollback has shown a profound regression from the early federal commitments to due process protections, which erode the precedent that recognized the right to counsel as a main point of fairness in administrative proceedings. In response and on the side of community based defense, coalitions like United We Dream and ACLU launched a a historical $30 million fund expanding access to lawyers for families facing many situational detention and deportation possibilities. 

This gap between federal policy and community organizing depict a structural imbalance within the American legal system. This tension between federal regression and local resilience highlights how legal precedent is being replaced by community responses struggling to fill the void left by an absent state.The 2025 legal rulings of convergence, enforcement practices, and detention inequities have been revealed as systematic indicators of deteriorating due process and procedures within the NYC immigration system.

Edited by Jane Bryant.