The U.S. Justice Department has filed suit against New York State, arguing that the 2020 Protect Our Courts Act—which bars federal immigration arrests in and around state courthouses—illegally hinders Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations. The complaint, lodged on 12 June in federal court in Albany, says the law violates the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause and obstructs federal authority to detain non-citizens. New York Attorney General Letitia James has pledged to defend the statute, insisting it protects litigants’ access to the courts without fear of immigration enforcement. The legal clash escalated on 16 July when twelve immigrants and three advocacy groups filed a class-action suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the Department of Homeland Security, Justice Department and ICE. The plaintiffs seek an injunction to stop what they call a nationwide policy of arresting non-citizens who appear for hearings in immigration courts and then placing them in expedited removal. They argue the practice, which they say has led to thousands of arrests since May, strips migrants of rights guaranteed by immigration law and the Fifth Amendment. Skye Perryman, chief executive of Democracy Forward, one of the groups behind the class action, said the Trump administration is “weaponizing immigration courts” and chilling participation in the legal process. Government officials defend the courthouse arrests as part of a broader effort to carry out the president’s pledge to deport serious offenders, contending that detainees who cannot establish credible-fear claims are subject to swift deportation. Advocacy lawyers counter that most individuals taken into custody have no criminal convictions and that immigration judges are being directed to dismiss cases, exposing attendees to immediate detention. The pair of lawsuits underscores mounting friction between federal immigration authorities and states, civil-rights groups and the judiciary over the scope of enforcement powers in and around courts. Both cases could shape how far the administration can go in pursuing arrests at judicial venues during its expanded deportation drive.