Federal Judge Orders NYC to Comply with Limited ICE Subpoena for Bronx Shelter Records

A federal judge has ruled that New York City must turn over limited identifying information from a Bronx homeless shelter to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), marking the latest clash between the Mamdani administration's sanctuary policies and federal immigration enforcement. On November 6, 2026, U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan granted the government's petition to compel compliance with an administrative subpoena in the case United States v. The City of New York (1:2025mc00559), directing the appointment of a special master to screen records.[1][2]

The subpoena targets the Bruckner shelter (also known as the shelter at 825 East 141st Street), a converted warehouse housing over 2,000 men that serves as the city's last emergency migrant housing facility. ICE seeks names and birth dates of male residents to investigate whether any are unlawfully present and subject to deportation, with a focus on those having certain serious criminal histories such as murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, assault, grand larceny, burglary, or assault on law enforcement.[3][4]

Kaplan rejected the city's arguments that the request was an improper "fishing expedition," unduly burdensome, or politically motivated to undermine sanctuary laws. He noted that ICE had narrowed its initial broad request (which covered multiple shelters) and consented to a special master to ensure only qualifying names are provided. The city has 14 days to propose appointment and compensation details for the special master.[5]

Mayor Zohran Mamdani's administration, which has promoted privacy protections and legal rights for migrants, is evaluating next steps, including a possible appeal. The ruling aligns with federal statutes authorizing ICE subpoenas and judicial enforcement when recipients refuse, while the special master mechanism limits disclosure to relevant criminal cases rather than the full shelter roster.[6]

This decision highlights tensions in sanctuary jurisdictions: local officials may resist broad data sharing, but courts can enforce narrowly tailored federal requests under judicial oversight. It does not authorize mass deportations or unrestricted access, preserving separate legal processes for determining removability.