Justice Department admits error in using ICE memo to justify immigration court arrests

DOJ lawyers admitted they used erroneous information when defending ICE arrests at immigration courts, conceding a 2025 memo doesn't apply to immigration courts.

Objective Facts

Justice Department lawyers admitted this week they used erroneous information when defending arrests made by ICE at immigration courthouses, conceding a 2025 ICE memo cited in court to defend the agency's arrests does not apply to immigration courts. On Tuesday morning, ICE officials told the DOJ that a memo titled "Civil Immigration Enforcement Actions in or Near Courthouses" from May 2025, which the government had used to argue its case, did not actually apply to immigration courts. The DOJ filed the letter as part of a lawsuit brought by the New York City-based immigrant advocacy organizations African Communities Together and The Door. Hundreds of migrants have been arrested at immigration courts as part of President Trump's aggressive crackdown on illegal and legal migration. Prosecutors acknowledged the court's September 12 opinion and order and the plaintiffs' briefs will need to be reconsidered and re-briefed for the Court to adjudicate Plaintiffs' APA claims against ICE on the merits.

Left-Leaning Perspective

Immigrant rights groups that brought the case challenging the administration's tactics said the implications of the Justice Department's disclosure "are far-reaching," with Amy Belsher of the New York Civil Liberties Union calling it a "shocking revelation" and "another example of ICE's brazen disregard for the lives of immigrants in this country." The ACLU argued that for months the government used the guidance spelled out in the memo to arrest both legal and undocumented immigrants, often leading to detention "in facilities hundreds of miles away." Belsher stated "the government is now admitting that this document — which the Court relied on to deny our clients relief — does not and never has authorized these courthouses arrests" and said "It is now clearer than ever that there is no justification for ambushing and arresting people who are showing up to court." Left-leaning coverage emphasizes that the Trump administration began detaining migrants in courthouse hallways nationwide, raising alarm among attorneys and advocates who said the practice was turning immigration courts from places of due process into zones of fear and punishing people who were following the rules.

Right-Leaning Perspective

The Department of Homeland Security stated there is no change in policy, writing "We will continue to arrest illegal aliens at immigration courts following their proceedings" and "Nothing prohibits arresting a lawbreaker where you find them." The government acknowledged the error does not affect its other arguments in support of the legality of the immigration court arrests, maintaining that courthouse arrests do not violate established legal protections. The government said the withdrawal of briefs "does not affect its arguments that ICE's immigration courthouse arrests do not violate any so-called common-law privilege against courthouse arrests." The Trump administration's position, as represented by DHS, frames the continuing policy in terms of law enforcement authority and the government's right to apprehend individuals with final removal orders regardless of location, characterizing detained individuals as lawbreakers rather than asylum-seekers or people following legal procedures.

Deep Dive

This lawsuit was brought by civil rights groups last year challenging the Trump administration's policy of arresting people at immigration courts, a practice that garnered national attention as the administration began detaining migrants in courthouse hallways nationwide. The pattern involved plainclothes federal agents carrying out arrests in courthouse hallways in coordination with DHS when asylum-seekers and immigrants went to buildings for routine hearings, with judges granting dismissal requests while ICE officers waited nearby to take detainees into custody and move them to expedited removal. The admission comes after Judge Castel denied the plaintiffs in the case preliminary relief in September, meaning a hold on immigration court arrests in downtown Manhattan, after the DOJ said the guidance provided justification and minimized the harms of such arrests. What each side gets right: The left correctly identifies that the memo's misapplication represents a significant legal vulnerability to the government's position, and their framing of the due process concerns reflects genuine legal doctrine about courthouse conduct. The right correctly notes that the government did formally withdraw its reliance on the erroneous interpretation and that other legal theories supporting courthouse arrests may exist. What they omit: The left downplays that immigration courts fall under the Justice Department's jurisdiction, creating complexity about what enforcement authorities apply. The right omits that ICE had continued detaining immigrants at their hearings in the months since Castel's ruling, suggesting ongoing reliance on the erroneous legal theory. On Thursday, Judge Castel ordered the Justice Department to preserve all records related to the case and the May 2025 memo, including communications between department lawyers and ICE. The unresolved question is whether Castel will grant reconsideration of his September ruling now that the factual predicate has shifted, and whether the admission will impact the immigrants detained under the policy, many of whom have likely already been deported.

OBJ SPEAKING

← Daily BriefAbout

Justice Department admits error in using ICE memo to justify immigration court arrests

DOJ lawyers admitted they used erroneous information when defending ICE arrests at immigration courts, conceding a 2025 memo doesn't apply to immigration courts.

Mar 25, 2026· Updated Mar 26, 2026
What's Going On

Justice Department lawyers admitted this week they used erroneous information when defending arrests made by ICE at immigration courthouses, conceding a 2025 ICE memo cited in court to defend the agency's arrests does not apply to immigration courts. On Tuesday morning, ICE officials told the DOJ that a memo titled "Civil Immigration Enforcement Actions in or Near Courthouses" from May 2025, which the government had used to argue its case, did not actually apply to immigration courts. The DOJ filed the letter as part of a lawsuit brought by the New York City-based immigrant advocacy organizations African Communities Together and The Door. Hundreds of migrants have been arrested at immigration courts as part of President Trump's aggressive crackdown on illegal and legal migration. Prosecutors acknowledged the court's September 12 opinion and order and the plaintiffs' briefs will need to be reconsidered and re-briefed for the Court to adjudicate Plaintiffs' APA claims against ICE on the merits.

Left says: Immigrant rights groups called the development a "shocking revelation" and "another example of ICE's brazen disregard for the lives of immigrants in this country." Critics say the admission exposes the lack of justification for courthouse arrests and argue "there is no justification for ambushing and arresting people who are showing up to court."
Right says: The Department of Homeland Security said there is no change in policy, stating "We will continue to arrest illegal aliens at immigration courts following their proceedings." DHS wrote "Nothing prohibits arresting a lawbreaker where you find them."
✓ Common Ground
Some voices on both sides acknowledge that ICE agents have conducted arrests at immigration courts as part of Trump's immigration enforcement crackdown, treating this as an established fact despite disagreement over its justification and effects.
There appears to be agreement across perspectives that the DOJ and ICE had mischaracterized the scope of the May 2025 memo—both the government and civil rights groups concur the memo does not apply to immigration courts, though they disagree sharply on implications.
Multiple stakeholders across the spectrum recognize that Judge Kevin Castel's September 2025 ruling relied partially on the erroneous memo, creating a procedural problem that may require reconsideration of the case.
Objective Deep Dive

This lawsuit was brought by civil rights groups last year challenging the Trump administration's policy of arresting people at immigration courts, a practice that garnered national attention as the administration began detaining migrants in courthouse hallways nationwide. The pattern involved plainclothes federal agents carrying out arrests in courthouse hallways in coordination with DHS when asylum-seekers and immigrants went to buildings for routine hearings, with judges granting dismissal requests while ICE officers waited nearby to take detainees into custody and move them to expedited removal.

The admission comes after Judge Castel denied the plaintiffs in the case preliminary relief in September, meaning a hold on immigration court arrests in downtown Manhattan, after the DOJ said the guidance provided justification and minimized the harms of such arrests. What each side gets right: The left correctly identifies that the memo's misapplication represents a significant legal vulnerability to the government's position, and their framing of the due process concerns reflects genuine legal doctrine about courthouse conduct. The right correctly notes that the government did formally withdraw its reliance on the erroneous interpretation and that other legal theories supporting courthouse arrests may exist. What they omit: The left downplays that immigration courts fall under the Justice Department's jurisdiction, creating complexity about what enforcement authorities apply. The right omits that ICE had continued detaining immigrants at their hearings in the months since Castel's ruling, suggesting ongoing reliance on the erroneous legal theory.

On Thursday, Judge Castel ordered the Justice Department to preserve all records related to the case and the May 2025 memo, including communications between department lawyers and ICE. The unresolved question is whether Castel will grant reconsideration of his September ruling now that the factual predicate has shifted, and whether the admission will impact the immigrants detained under the policy, many of whom have likely already been deported.

◈ Tone Comparison

Left-leaning outlets emphasize systemic injustice, due process violations, and the moral implications of arrests at courthouses, using language of "ambushes" and "traps." Right-leaning/Trump administration statements emphasize law enforcement authority, the legality of apprehending individuals with deportation orders, and the technical nature of the memo mischaracterization as a bureaucratic error rather than a policy problem.

✕ Key Disagreements
Whether the admission of error delegitimizes the courthouse arrest policy
Left: Civil rights advocates argue the error exposes that the policy has no legal justification and should be abandoned immediately, calling for Congressional investigation and civil rights actions.
Right: The Trump administration maintains the policy remains lawful under separate legal theories and says the error does not affect the validity of immigration court arrests.
The characterization of individuals being arrested at immigration courts
Left: Immigrant advocates describe them as people following legal processes, attending mandated court hearings in compliance with immigration law, and deserving due process protections.
Right: DHS characterizes them as "illegal aliens" and "lawbreakers" who can be arrested wherever they are found, including in courthouse buildings where they completed their hearings.
Responsibility for the error and its resolution
Left: Advocates emphasize that the error was used to deny plaintiffs preliminary relief and that hundreds of people may have been wrongfully detained, demanding accountability and relief for those affected.
Right: The Trump administration blames ICE attorney error and says the error was corrected through internal memos, maintaining the underlying policy is sound and requires no policy changes.