DOJ says it erroneously relied on ICE memo to justify immigration courthouse arrests
Key Takeaways
- It has been reported that the Justice Department told a federal court it mistakenly relied on an ICE memo to justify arrests at immigration courthouses.
- DOJ says the “2025 ICE Guidance” “does not and has never applied to civil immigration enforcement actions in or near” immigration courts (EOIR).
- The admission will require the court to reconsider prior rulings and re‑brief the plaintiffs’ Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claims.
- Immigrant advocates call the disclosure “shocking”; the practical effect for people in removal proceedings is still uncertain while the case is re‑litigated.
Background
It has been reported that federal prosecutors told a U.S. district court they had relied in error on an ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) memo titled “2025 ICE Guidance” when defending the agency’s practice of making civil immigration arrests at or near immigration courts. The Justice Department filed that disclosure after receiving an internal ICE email reminding staff that the Guidance “does not apply to Executive Office for Immigration Review (Immigration) courts, regardless of their location.” Judge Kevin Castel had earlier denied a request from immigrant‑rights groups to block the courthouse arrests, citing ICE’s guidance as permitting arrests “at or near an immigration court.”
Legal fallout
Prosecutors apologized to the court for a “material mistaken statement of fact,” said the error appears to have resulted from “agency attorney error,” and informed the plaintiffs. Because the government’s briefing relied on the mistaken premise, DOJ acknowledged that the court’s Sept. 12 opinion and the parties’ briefs “will need to be reconsidered and re‑briefed” so the court can adjudicate the plaintiffs’ APA (Administrative Procedure Act) claims on the merits. The APA is the federal law that allows courts to review whether a government agency acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or outside its statutory authority.
Human impact
For noncitizens who must appear in immigration court—people in removal proceedings, asylum seekers, and others—the issue goes beyond legal briefs. Advocates say ICE’s courthouse arrests chilled attendance at mandatory hearings and disrupted defense preparation; plaintiffs’ counsel call the disclosure a “shocking revelation” and argue it underscores ICE’s disregard for immigrant communities. Practically speaking, some who were arrested at court may seek relief if those arrests are found unlawful, but outcomes will depend on further litigation and any remedies the court orders.
What this means now
For people currently navigating immigration court: continue to attend all hearings and maintain contact with counsel. The DOJ admission weakens the government’s legal defense and forces re‑examination of the issue, but it does not automatically stop ICE courthouse operations; the agency (DHS/ICE) has not issued a public reversal and declined immediate comment. Immigration lawyers and advocates may press for renewed injunctions or other relief; meanwhile, affected individuals should document encounters with enforcement, notify counsel, and raise any arrests with their attorneys for possible challenge in court.
Source: Original Article