A Manhattan federal judge said Wednesday that he plans to rule by the end of the year on the Trump administration's bid to dismiss a suit led by New York Attorney General Letitia James to challenge its policy of arresting undocumented immigrants in and around state courthouses.

Following about an hour of oral argument, U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the Southern District of New York said he would accept one more round of submissions from both sides before entering a decision by Dec. 31 at the latest.

"I have no clear determination yet on many of the questions raised," Rakoff said from the bench. But he appeared skeptical of the Trump administration's assertion that federal immigration law gives the government exclusive authority to make the arrests, regardless of location.

James and Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzalez sued U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in September over a 2018 directive allowing agents to carry out arrests in or around state courthouses.

In the lawsuit, James claimed the directive was both unconstitutional and unlawfully promulgated, and that it created a chilling effect for undocumented immigrants, who she said are now less likely to pursue civil litigation or agree to testify in a criminal proceeding.

The legal challenge was based on claims that the Trump administration has drastically ramped up the arrests in recent years, leading to as much as a 1,736% increase in ICE courthouse enforcement, according to one analysis by an immigrant advocacy and legal services group.

Lawyers from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York moved to dismiss the suit in October. They refute the state's claims that the arrests are unlawful under a centuries-old common-law privilege against civil arrests during, or outside, a court proceeding in New York, saying that federal law passed by Congress superseded the centuries-old understanding.

At Wednesday evening's arguments, government attorney Tomoko Onozawa said the administration's policy regarding courthouse arrests could not be reviewed by a federal judge.

That argument sparked a somewhat incredulous response from Rakoff, who called the statement "unusual and extraordinary."

Matthew Colangelo, who argued on behalf of the state, also seized on that characterization during his time before the judge.

"That's a striking possibility that the court should not agree with," he said.

Rakoff ended the hearing by asking for one last round of filings by Dec. 3. His decision, by the end of the year, would encompass all outstanding issues that the parties have raised, he said.

The lawsuit from New York and Gonzalez is separate from a different challenge to the courthouse arrests from the Legal Aid Society and a coalition of immigrant rights groups. The administration has also moved to dismiss that lawsuit, which is still pending in the Southern District.

Read More: