Recent changes in federal policy have led to allegations that members of the public are being unlawfully barred from observing immigration court proceedings, raising questions about transparency and accountability in one of the nation’s most consequential administrative forums. A group of New York City residents filed a complaint on March 16, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the General Services Administration.
The plaintiffs—Fr. Fabian Arias, Stephen Kelly, Laura McCallum, Debora Nathan, and Dr. Zoey Phillips—are seeking class action status on behalf of all individuals affected by what they describe as sweeping restrictions on lawful First Amendment activity within New York City’s immigration courts. Named defendants include Todd Lyons (Acting Director of ICE), Kristi Noem (Secretary of Homeland Security), Pamela Bondi (U.S. Attorney General), and Edward Forst (Administrator of General Services), each sued in their official capacities.
According to the complaint, immigration courts are generally open to the public except under limited circumstances defined by regulation. Plaintiffs argue that this openness is essential not only for due process but also for ensuring government accountability: “Courts have long recognized that adjudicative proceedings are presumptively open to the public under the First Amendment.” They allege that over the past year, authorities responsible for operating New York City’s immigration courts have imposed new policies and practices designed to discourage or block public attendance—actions they claim are contrary to law and established precedent.
The document details how security guards stationed outside court buildings allegedly prevent entry even when no written policy justifies such measures. Plaintiffs report being required to show additional identification or documentation without basis in published rules—a practice said to result in visitors, respondents with scheduled hearings, and attorneys being denied entry arbitrarily.
Once inside court buildings, plaintiffs allege they faced harassment from security guards and federal police as well as exclusion from observing proceedings by court employees. The complaint states: “Individuals who attempt to remain to carry out their protected activities in public areas may be expelled at the discretion of security officers…for doing so.” These exclusions reportedly extend even to those accompanying respondents at their request or attempting remote observation via Webex.
Plaintiffs assert that these practices are not set forth in any publicly available policy nor based on courtroom capacity or judicial orders but instead reflect a broader pattern aimed at suppressing speech and association related to supporting immigrants: “Federal agents have confiscated such materials based solely on their content and have ejected people from the building explicitly for disobeying an unlawful verbal instruction…not to engage in speech about legal or social services for immigrants.” They further allege incidents where visitors were injured during enforcement actions by federal agents inside courthouses.
Each plaintiff describes personal experiences with exclusion or intimidation while attempting activities ranging from pastoral accompaniment (Fr. Arias) and legal observation (Stephen Kelly) to journalistic reporting (Debora Nathan), psychological support (Dr. Zoey Phillips), and community volunteering (Laura McCallum). Their accounts include being turned away from courtroom doors without explanation; barred from distributing information about legal rights; ordered out of waiting rooms; prevented from re-entering after brief absences; or witnessing physical altercations involving security personnel.
The suit alleges violations under both the First Amendment—arguing that expressive activity cannot be suppressed without lawful justification—and the Administrative Procedure Act for failure to follow proper regulatory procedures. Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment that current policies violate constitutional rights as well as preliminary and permanent injunctions preventing further enforcement or retaliation against protected activities.
They also request certification as a class action covering all persons subjected to these restrictions within the jurisdiction of the court; appointment of Stephen Kelly as Class Counsel; an award for attorneys’ fees and costs; and any other relief deemed appropriate by the Court.
The case is identified as Civil Case 26-2130. The complaint was submitted by attorney Stephen Kelly on behalf of all plaintiffs.
Source: 126cv2130.pdf
