Trump Administration Admits Error in Immigration Court Arrest Lawsuit
Trump DOJ admits federal court it erroneously relied on memo to justify ICE courthouse arrests of immigrants for over a year.
Objective Facts
The Justice Department admitted to a federal judge Tuesday it's been incorrectly relying on an Immigration and Customs Enforcement memo to justify arrests at immigration courts, according to a new court filing in an ongoing lawsuit. A Trump administration attorney admitted in federal court that the Department of Justice misrepresented an internal memo to justify arrests in 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. Instead, it only applies to arrests at regular courthouses. The case stems from a lawsuit filed by advocacy groups, including the New York Civil Liberties Union, challenging ICE's practice of arresting migrants inside immigration courts, which are overseen by the Justice Department. Critics argue the policy discourages immigrants from attending required hearings and undermines due process. The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, said Thursday that enforcement practices would continue unchanged.
Left-Leaning Perspective
Left-leaning outlets and immigrant rights advocates characterize the admission as a bombshell revelation of deliberate deception. Former New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, who is running for Congress in the city's Tenth District, said in an emailed statement to the Prospect that courthouse arrests should end in light of the new information. ICE has been lying for more than a year about its authority to arrest people when they show up to their routine immigration court hearings, according to a letter the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York filed yesterday. "This is genuinely a bombshell. All courthouse arrests should cease immediately," Lander, who was arrested twice for protesting at Federal Plaza, posted on Wednesday. "There should be a Congressional investigation & civil rights actions for every illegal abduction of immigrants trying to follow the rules and appear in court." "A through line here is that ICE has acted with reckless disregard as to the truth in front of federal courts across the country," she said. "This is not an incident specific to our case, we are seeing this happen everywhere, and here, it's just all the more egregious because of the enormous harm this policy has been inflicting on New Yorkers and people who were just trying to follow the rules." Left-leaning sources emphasize that hundreds of people—including legal permanent residents and asylum seekers—were wrongfully detained based on a legally deficient memo. The broader left narrative characterizes the practice as fundamentally un-American, a violation of due process that transformed immigration courts into "zones of fear." Last year, the Trump administration began detaining migrants in courthouse hallways nationwide, sometimes moments after pleading their cases. The move raised 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. What the left omits: any acknowledgment that the Trump administration withdrew the memo-based arguments, or focus on the fact that DOJ attorneys maintain their other legal theories defending arrests remain sound.
Right-Leaning Perspective
Right-leaning voices and DHS statements maintain that the error does not undermine the legitimacy of courthouse arrests more broadly. Justice Department lawyers said the error does not undermine their broader legal arguments defending the arrests. The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, said Thursday that enforcement practices would continue unchanged. "There is no change in policy," the department said in a statement. "We will continue to arrest illegal aliens at immigration courts following their proceedings," the DHS wrote in a statement to NPR. "Nothing prohibits arresting a lawbreaker where you find them," the statement said. The right's position emphasizes that while one memo-based argument is being withdrawn, the government maintains alternative legal justifications for the practice. Even though the government was withdrawing parts of its briefs that relied on the ICE memo, prosecutors wrote, the withdrawal "does not affect its arguments that ICE's immigration courthouse arrests do not violate any so-called common-law privilege against courthouse arrests." The right frames detainees as lawbreakers found in locations where enforcement is permissible, regardless of the specific legal memorandum cited. Right-leaning commentary is largely absent from search results beyond DHS statements. What emerges instead is tactical positioning: the Trump administration acknowledges the memo error but signals no operational change, effectively minimizing the significance of the admission. The right omits acknowledgment that hundreds of people were detained under an admittedly incorrect legal theory, or discussion of whether detainees merit individual review.
Deep Dive
This development emerged from a federal lawsuit by civil rights organizations challenging ICE's practice of arresting immigrants at immigration courthouses—courts overseen by the Justice Department that handle administrative immigration proceedings, not criminal cases. Background: The Trump administration began deploying ICE agents inside immigration courthouses in 2025, detaining individuals immediately after or even during their hearings. A May 2025 ICE memo purportedly authorized such "civil immigration enforcement actions in or near courthouses." In September 2025, Judge Kevin Castel largely denied the plaintiff's request to halt the practice, citing the memo as legal justification. The practice continued throughout fall and winter, with hundreds arrested, many detained far from home. The admission itself is significant but limited in scope. The DOJ concedes the memo does not apply to immigration courts—only to regular criminal/civil courthouses. However, the DOJ explicitly states this error does not affect its other legal arguments that courthouse arrests do not violate a "common-law privilege." In other words: one legal theory is withdrawn, but alternative justifications remain. The government's attribution of the error to "agency attorney error" by ICE counsel is worth scrutinizing; ICE apparently sent a March 19, 2026 internal email clarifying the memo's non-applicability to immigration courts, but only disclosed this to DOJ on March 25. This raises questions about whether the error was truly "attorney error" or institutional communications failure. The left's claim that ICE "lied" for a year hinges on interpreting this disclosure delay as evidence of bad faith. What comes next remains unclear. Judge Castel has not yet ruled on how to handle the case. He relied heavily on the now-withdrawn memo in denying preliminary relief in September. Some observers suggest his prior ruling may be effectively invalidated, requiring him to reconsider the injunction request. However, the government's continued assertion that arrests are lawful on other grounds means litigation may continue on the merits. The practical question is whether hundreds of people already detained under the flawed authority merit relief, review, or remedy—an issue neither side has fully addressed. The Trump administration's "no change in policy" statement suggests arrests will continue pending judicial resolution, potentially undermining the practical significance of the DOJ's admission.