The Trump administration acknowledged in federal court filings this week that it erroneously relied on an internal ICE memo to justify arrests of immigrants at immigration courthouses, a practice that has drawn legal challenges and public scrutiny.

The Justice Department said in its filing that it had used a memo titled "2025 ICE Guidance" to defend the administration's deployment of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents at courthouses, which led to numerous arrests of immigrants attending scheduled hearings.

However, the department clarified that the memo "does not and has never applied to civil immigration enforcement actions in or near" immigration courts, contradicting the legal arguments it had presented to the court.

The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the filing.

What the Right Is Saying

The Justice Department, while acknowledging the error, maintained that the withdrawal of arguments based on the ICE memo does not affect broader legal positions.

In its filing, prosecutors wrote 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."

The administration has defended its immigration enforcement tactics as lawful exercises of executive authority, arguing that ICE officers have the discretion to enforce civil immigration laws in various locations.

Federal prosecutors noted they had received approval from ICE counsel before filing briefs and making oral arguments in the case, underscoring what they called a "material mistaken statement of fact" that resulted from agency attorney error.

The government apologized to the court for the mistake, stating it became aware of the error when it received an email sent to ICE personnel as a "reminder that the May 27, 2025, Guidance does not apply to Executive Office for Immigration Review (Immigration) courts, regardless of their location."

What the Left Is Saying

Immigrant rights groups and their attorneys called the DOJ's disclosure a "shocking revelation" that demonstrates ICE's continued disregard for the rights of immigrants in the United States.

Amy Belsher, an attorney with the New York Civil Liberties Union representing the plaintiffs, said in a statement: "It is yet again another example of ICE's brazen disregard for the lives of immigrants in this country. It is now clearer than ever that there is no justification for ambushing and arresting people who are showing up to court."

The groups said the implications of the Justice Department's disclosure "are far-reaching" and argued that the entire legal basis for the courthouse arrests should be reconsidered.

The plaintiffs had sought to block the administration from arresting immigrants at mandated court hearings, arguing the practice deters people from attending their proceedings and violates due process rights.

What the Numbers Show

The case is before U.S. District Judge Kevin Castel in the Southern District of New York. Castel had previously rejected the plaintiffs' request to block the administration's courthouse arrests, ruling that ICE's guidance "allowed arrests at or near an immigration court."

As a result of the DOJ's disclosure, the court's September 12 opinion and order will need to be "reconsidered and re-briefed" for the judge to adjudicate the plaintiffs' Administrative Procedure Act claims against ICE on the merits.

The case involves challenges to a tactic that has resulted in numerous arrests at immigration courts. In one high-profile example, Dylan Contreras, a 20-year-old Venezuelan immigrant who was pursuing a green card, was detained after a routine hearing in May 2025. He was released this month after ten months in custody.

DHS stated that Contreras entered the U.S. during the Biden administration and that ICE was "following the law and placing these illegal aliens in expedited removal, as they always should have been." His lawyers argued he was seeking asylum.

The Bottom Line

The DOJ's admission that it relied on an inapplicable memo raises serious questions about the legal foundation for immigration courthouse arrests and may strengthen the plaintiffs' arguments in their challenge to the practice.

The case will now return to Judge Castel for further proceedings, with both sides set to rebrief the issues now that the key legal document has been withdrawn from consideration.

The outcome could determine whether ICE can continue its practice of detaining immigrants at immigration court hearings, a tactic that has drawn criticism from immigrant rights groups and some Democratic officials who argue it undermines the immigration court system.

The Trump administration has defended its enforcement actions as necessary for border security and immigration law compliance, while opponents say the arrests discourage immigrants from attending court proceedings and seeking legal protections.