Photo by Malcolm Garret on <a href="https://www.pexels.com/photo/subway-station-entrance-12217613/" rel="nofollow">Pexels.com</a>
An ICE shelter subpoena seeking the names and birth dates of men living in a Bronx homeless shelter must be honored by New York City, a federal judge has ruled. U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan issued a 12-page order compelling Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s administration to comply, while accepting ICE’s consent to have a special master screen the list, according to Politico, which reviewed the order. The ruling puts the city’s sanctuary laws up against a federal investigative tool that local officials cannot simply decline the way they decline a detainer.
Politico reported that ICE is investigating whether any of the shelter’s residents are in the country unlawfully and removable, and that the agency narrowed its demand over several rounds. The first version reached residents of two shelters; the version before Kaplan was limited to residents accused of certain violent crimes. The parties have two weeks to propose a plan for how the special master will cull the names. Mamdani spokesperson Ivonne Rodriguez said the administration is “evaluating next steps,” and New York Attorney General Letitia James said her office is “reviewing the possibility of an appeal,” Politico reported. The outlet did not report a DHS or ICE response, and as of Saturday it was the only established outlet found reporting the order.
Why a subpoena is harder to refuse than a detainer
Most of the year’s sanctuary litigation has turned on detainers, the Form I-247A requests asking a jail to hold someone for ICE. Courts keep holding that those requests are voluntary, most recently in a Philadelphia ruling that tossed the Justice Department’s preemption claims. New York City has relied on the same principle to refuse thousands of detainers, as the city’s own records confirm.
An administrative subpoena works differently. Section 235(d)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, codified at 8 U.S.C. 1225(d)(4), lets immigration officers demand documents concerning “any matter which is material and relevant to the enforcement” of the immigration laws, and authorizes a federal district court to order compliance when a recipient refuses. Kaplan’s order, as quoted by Politico, used that same phrase and deferred to the agency’s view that the records were relevant to a legitimate investigation. That deference is standard: courts enforcing agency subpoenas generally ask only whether the investigation has a lawful purpose, the request is relevant to it, and it is not unreasonably broad.
The city argued that ICE was on a “fishing expedition,” that compliance would be burdensome, and that the agency was using subpoena power “to circumvent and undermine the City’s sanctuary city laws,” according to Politico’s account of the order. Those arguments ran into a structural problem. A local law can stop city workers from volunteering information to ICE, but it cannot override a federal court order enforcing a federal statute. The special master is the practical compromise: it lets a neutral party apply ICE’s narrowed criteria so the agency does not receive the full roster.
What the order means for shelter residents and other cities
For people in the shelter system, the immediate exposure is limited to residents who fit the violent-crime criteria, not everyone who sleeps there. The broader effect is that a shelter intake record can now reach ICE through a court-supervised process, even in a city with strong confidentiality rules. Shelter providers in other sanctuary jurisdictions are likely to read the order as a sign that narrowly drawn subpoenas will be enforced, and that their best leverage lies in negotiating scope rather than refusing outright.
An appeal would go to the Second Circuit, where the city would have to show that Kaplan misapplied a deferential standard, a difficult task given how much ICE already narrowed the request. The fight also lands as the Mamdani administration escalates its broader standoff with federal immigration agents, including its threat to sue over ICE’s use of city parking lots, and as New York’s statewide limits on cooperation, such as the ban on 287(g) agreements, hold up in court. The subpoena ruling shows the limit of that strategy: sanctuary laws control what a city volunteers, not what a federal judge orders it to produce.
Next steps to watch
- Special master plan: due from the parties about two weeks after the order, per Politico.
- Appeal decision: whether the city or the state attorney general seeks Second Circuit review or a stay before any names are produced.
This article is for general information and is not legal advice.
Sources: Politico, “Judge orders Mamdani administration to comply with ICE subpoena” (Nov. 6, 2026); 8 U.S.C. 1225(d)(4), Immigration and Nationality Act § 235(d)(4).
About the Author
