Justice Department lawyers acknowledged this week that they used incorrect information to defend Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrests at courthouses. In a letter to U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel, the DOJ conceded a 2025 ICE memo does not apply to immigration courts. The memo, issued in May 2025, outlined conditions for ICE actions in courthouses, but the DOJ letter clarified it "does not and has never applied to civil immigration enforcement actions in or near" those courts. The African Communities Together and The Door, immigrant advocacy groups, filed a lawsuit challenging the arrests, leading to this revelation.
The 2025 ICE memo stated agents could conduct arrests "in or near courthouses when they have credible information" about a person's presence. However, DOJ lawyers admitted they wrongly relied on this document in court filings, blaming ICE for the misinformation. They noted in the letter that they had consulted ICE counsel before every brief and oral statement to the court.
This admission came in response to the ongoing lawsuit, where the memo served as a key defense. The DOJ's letter also mentioned sending a reminder to ICE agents about the correct policy, highlighting internal miscommunication. Affected migrants, including both legal and undocumented individuals, have faced detention in distant facilities as a result.
The ACLU of New York, representing the plaintiffs, described the implications as "far reaching" in a court filing. Amy Belsher, the ACLU's director of immigrants' rights litigation, stated that the government's use of the memo led to arrests and separations from communities. These actions have disrupted lives, with many immigrants detained far from home.
Belsher's statement to reporters emphasized ICE's "brazen disregard for the lives of immigrants." The lawsuit by African Communities Together and The Door directly challenges these practices, seeking to prevent future courthouse arrests.
A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson declared there is no change in policy regarding arrests at immigration courts. The DHS stated it will "continue to arrest illegal aliens at immigration courts following their proceedings." This stance directly counters the DOJ's admission, maintaining that no laws prohibit such actions.
The spokesperson added that "nothing prohibits arresting a lawbreaker where you find them," framing the policy as routine. This response from DHS highlights a potential divide between agencies, as the DOJ pointed to ICE for the error. Individuals in the court system may still face uncertainty due to these conflicting signals.
Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner threatened to arrest ICE agents if they break the law during operations. Krasner's action signals a willingness to protect local jurisdictions from what he views as overreach.
The threat extends to scenarios where ICE agents might act outside proper procedures, tying into the DOJ's revealed error. This development illustrates how courthouse arrests could lead to confrontations, affecting community safety and legal processes. Residents in areas like Philadelphia might experience direct impacts on daily interactions with law enforcement.
Hundreds of migrants have been arrested at immigration courts, many of whom have already faced deportation under the flawed policy. The DOJ's error means some of these individuals could challenge their detentions, potentially reuniting families split by enforcement. Judge Kevin Castel ordered the Trump administration to preserve all records related to the case, ensuring evidence for future reviews.
This situation leaves those affected waiting for court decisions that could alter their status. As a result, immigrants should contact advocacy groups like the ACLU for guidance on their rights.
Justice Department lawyers acknowledged this week that they used incorrect information to defend Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrests at courthouses. In a letter to U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel, the DOJ conceded a 2025 ICE memo does not apply to immigration courts. This mistake affects hundreds of migrants arrested under the policy, potentially disrupting their legal proceedings and family stability.
The memo, issued in May 2025, outlined conditions for ICE actions in courthouses, but the DOJ letter clarified it "does not and has never applied to civil immigration enforcement actions in or near" those courts. The African Communities Together and The Door, immigrant advocacy groups, filed a lawsuit challenging the arrests, leading to this revelation. Such errors could undermine public trust in federal enforcement and raise questions about individual rights during court appearances.
The 2025 ICE memo stated agents could conduct arrests "in or near courthouses when they have credible information" about a person's presence. However, DOJ lawyers admitted they wrongly relied on this document in court filings, blaming ICE for the misinformation. They noted in the letter that they had consulted ICE counsel before every brief and oral statement to the court.
This admission came in response to the ongoing lawsuit, where the memo served as a key defense. The DOJ's letter also mentioned sending a reminder to ICE agents about the correct policy, highlighting internal miscommunication. Affected migrants, including both legal and undocumented individuals, have faced detention in distant facilities as a result.
The ACLU of New York, representing the plaintiffs, described the implications as "far reaching" in a court filing. Amy Belsher, the ACLU's director of immigrants' rights litigation, stated that the government's use of the memo led to arrests and separations from communities. These actions have disrupted lives, with many immigrants detained far from home.
Belsher's statement to reporters emphasized ICE's "brazen disregard for the lives of immigrants." The lawsuit by African Communities Together and The Door directly challenges these practices, seeking to prevent future courthouse arrests. This pushback underscores how enforcement errors can lead to widespread human consequences.
A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson declared there is no change in policy regarding arrests at immigration courts. The DHS stated it will "continue to arrest illegal aliens at immigration courts following their proceedings." This stance directly counters the DOJ's admission, maintaining that no laws prohibit such actions.
The spokesperson added that "nothing prohibits arresting a lawbreaker where you find them," framing the policy as routine. This response from DHS highlights a potential divide between agencies, as the DOJ pointed to ICE for the error. Individuals in the court system may still face uncertainty due to these conflicting signals.
Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner threatened to arrest ICE agents if they violate state laws during operations. This threat emerged in the context of broader tensions between federal and local authorities over immigration enforcement. Krasner's action signals a willingness to protect local jurisdictions from what he views as overreach.
The threat extends to scenarios where ICE agents might act outside proper procedures, tying into the DOJ's revealed error. This development illustrates how courthouse arrests could lead to confrontations, affecting community safety and legal processes. Residents in areas like Philadelphia might experience direct impacts on daily interactions with law enforcement.
Hundreds of migrants have been arrested at immigration courts, many of whom have already faced deportation under the flawed policy. The DOJ's error means some of these individuals could challenge their detentions, potentially reuniting families split by enforcement. Judge Kevin Castel ordered the Trump administration to preserve all records related to the case, ensuring evidence for future reviews.
This situation leaves those affected waiting for court decisions that could alter their status. The broader fallout reminds people that enforcement mistakes can separate families and disrupt lives across the country. As a result, immigrants should contact advocacy groups like the ACLU for guidance on their rights.
Highlighted text was flagged by the council. Tap to see feedback.
