DOJ Admits 'Erroneous Reliance' on ICE Memo in Courthouse Arrest Defense

The U.S. Justice Department has acknowledged mistakenly using a specific ICE directive to justify controversial immigration courthouse arrests, prompting calls for reconsideration in an ongoing federal lawsuit.

The U.S. Justice Department has admitted it erroneously relied on an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) memo to justify arrests at immigration courthouses. This admission came in a court filing as part of an ongoing federal lawsuit brought by groups seeking to block the controversial tactic.

Federal prosecutors stated on Tuesday that they used the document, specifically titled "2025 ICE Guidance," to defend the Trump administration's strategy of deploying ICE agents at courthouses. This strategy resulted in numerous arrests of immigrants attending scheduled hearings. The memo itself outlines that "ICE officers or agents may conduct civil immigration enforcement actions in or near courthouses when they have credible information" that a targeted individual would be "present at a specific location."

However, the Justice Department clarified in its court filing that the memo "does not and has never applied to civil immigration enforcement actions in or near" immigration courts, despite its prior use for such justifications. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which oversees ICE, did not immediately respond to a request for comment regarding the revelation.

Discovery of the Error

The government indicated in its filing that it became aware of the error on Tuesday. This discovery occurred upon receipt of an email sent to ICE personnel, serving as a "reminder that the May 27, 2025, Guidance does not apply to Executive Office for Immigration Review (Immigration) courts, regardless of their location." Prosecutors did not specify why they also received this internal ICE email but confirmed they had informed the immigrant rights groups, the plaintiffs in the case, about the mistake.

The Justice Department's filing on Tuesday included repeated apologies to U.S. District Judge Kevin Castel, who presides over the case, for a "material mistaken statement of fact that the Government made to the Court and Plaintiffs" while arguing on behalf of the immigration agency. Prosecutors wrote, "Based on our discussions with ICE today, this regrettable error appears to have occurred because of agency attorney error." Prosecutors also stated they had received approval from ICE counsel before filing every brief and making any oral arguments to both the court and the plaintiffs in the case.

Far-Reaching Legal Implications

In a filing on Wednesday, the immigrant rights organizations that initiated the lawsuit challenging the administration’s practice of arresting immigrants at mandated court hearings asserted that the implications of the Justice Department's disclosure "are far-reaching." Amy Belsher, an attorney with the New York Civil Liberties Union representing the plaintiffs, characterized the development as a "shocking revelation." Belsher stated, "It is yet again another example of ICE’s brazen disregard for the lives of immigrants in this country. It is now clearer than ever that there is no justification for ambushing and arresting people who are showing up to court.”

U.S. District Judge Kevin Castel, presiding over the case, had previously rejected the groups’ request to block the administration’s courthouse arrests. In his ruling, Judge Castel had cited ICE’s guidance as "allowed arrests at or near an immigration court." Prosecutors acknowledged that, as a direct consequence of the mistake, the court's September 12 opinion and order, along with the plaintiffs' briefs, "will need to be reconsidered and re-briefed for the Court to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ APA [Administrative Procedure Act] claims against ICE on the merits."

As of Wednesday night, Judge Castel had not entered a response into the case’s public docket. Despite the government withdrawing parts of its briefs that relied on the ICE memo, prosecutors wrote that this withdrawal "does not affect its arguments that ICE’s immigration courthouse arrests do not violate any so-called common-law privilege against courthouse arrests."

Controversial Policy Under Scrutiny

The Trump administration's broader tactic of detaining immigrants at scheduled hearings has consistently sparked outcry from advocates. For instance, in May, authorities detained Dylan Contreras, a New York City public school student with no criminal history, after a routine hearing. Contreras, 20 at the time, was pursuing a green card after arriving from Venezuela and was subsequently released this month. The newly revealed misrepresentation of the ICE guidance adds another layer of complexity to the legal and public debate surrounding these enforcement actions.

Top Stories

Recent Articles

More Articles

Top Stories

Recent Articles

More Articles