Courthouse Arrests: DOJ admits ICE memo was wrongly used to justify detentions at immigration courts
courthouse arrests are now at the center of a major reversal in federal court after the Justice Department acknowledged it mistakenly relied on an ICE guidance memo to defend detentions near immigration courts. Federal prosecutors said Tuesday, in a court filing in an ongoing case overseen by U. S. District Judge Kevin Castel in New York City, that the memo they cited does not apply to immigration courts. The disclosure came as immigrant rights groups continue pressing to block the tactic of arresting immigrants at mandated court hearings.
What the DOJ told the court — and when (ET)
Federal prosecutors said Tuesday (ET) that the Trump administration had erroneously relied on an ICE memo titled “2025 ICE Guidance” to justify arrests connected to ICE deployments at courthouses that led to numerous arrests of immigrants attending hearings. While the memo stated that “ICE officers or agents may conduct civil immigration enforcement actions in or near courthouses” when they have credible information a targeted person would be present at a specific location, the Justice Department said in the filing that the memo “does not and has never applied to civil immigration enforcement actions in or near” immigration courts.
The government said it became aware of the mistake Tuesday (ET) after receiving an email sent to ICE personnel reminding staff that the May 27, 2025 guidance does not apply to Executive Office for Immigration Review (Immigration) courts, regardless of location. Prosecutors did not explain why they also received the ICE email, but said they informed the immigrant rights groups that brought the case.
Immediate reactions as courthouse arrests fight sharpens
Amy Belsher, an attorney with the New York Civil Liberties Union representing plaintiffs in the case, called the disclosure a “shocking revelation”, arguing it underscores a lack of justification for arrests tied to people attending court. In a separate filing Wednesday (ET), the immigrant rights groups said the implications of the Justice Department’s disclosure “are far-reaching. ”
On the government side, prosecutors apologized to Judge Castel for what they described as a “material mistaken statement of fact” made to the court and plaintiffs when the government argued on behalf of the immigration agency. Prosecutors said the error appears to have occurred because of “agency attorney error, ” and said they had received approval from ICE counsel before filing briefs and making oral arguments in the case.
Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
How the case could shift after the filing
The mistaken reliance on the memo matters because Judge Castel had previously rejected the groups’ request to block the administration’s courthouse arrests, writing in that ruling that ICE’s guidance “allowed arrests at or near an immigration court. ” Prosecutors now acknowledge that, due to the error, the court’s Sept. 12 opinion and order and the plaintiffs’ briefs “will need to be reconsidered and re-briefed” so the court can adjudicate the plaintiffs’ Administrative Procedure Act claims against ICE “on the merits. ”
Even as the government withdraws parts of its briefs that relied on the ICE memo, prosecutors also told the court that 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. ”
Quick context
The lawsuit challenges ICE’s practice of targeting people seeking to gain legal status as they leave immigration courts, a tactic that has resulted in people being arrested after attending hearings and then detained, sometimes far from where their cases are pending. In communications to the court, an ICE attorney said the memo previously cited by prosecutors “does not and has never authorized” arrests near immigration courts.
What’s next
As of Wednesday night (ET), Judge Castel had not entered a response in the case’s public docket. The next developments will center on revised briefing and the court’s reassessment of arguments that had been built around the memo—while the broader dispute over courthouse arrests continues in the same federal case.
