DOJ admits memo error on court arrests
The DOJ acknowledged it mis‑cited a memo used to justify ICE arrests at immigration courts but said enforcement will continue—an admission that undercuts part of DOJ’s public rationale while keeping courtroom arrests intact (x.com).
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York filed a letter on March 24, 2026 telling U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel that a “material mistaken statement of fact” had been made and that the May 27, 2025 memorandum titled “Civil Immigration Enforcement Actions in or Near Courthouses” “does not and has never applied to” EOIR immigration courts. (hackinglawpractice.com) That filing attached an ICE e‑mail dated March 19, 2026 that was circulated to Enforcement and Removal Operations 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.” (hackinglawpractice.com) In light of the revelation, the government withdrew the portions of its briefs that relied on the 2025 guidance (listed as ECF Nos. 39, 66, 70 and 74) and asked the court to correct the record for statements made at the September 2, 2025 oral argument. (hackinglawpractice.com) The lawsuit, African Communities Together v. Lyons, No. 25 Civ. 6366 (PKC), was filed by African Communities Together and The Door and is being litigated by the New York Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU in the Southern District of New York. (courthousenews.com) Judge Castel ordered the government to preserve all past, present and future communications about the May 2025 memo, including communications between DOJ attorneys and ICE, and granted plaintiffs two weeks to meet with government counsel and file a response to the DOJ’s March 24 letter. (cbsnews.com) DOJ lawyers attributed the error to an “agency attorney” at ICE and described the disclosure as “regrettable” while outside reporting observed the admission undermines a central piece of the government’s prior defense even as the DOJ said other legal arguments remain. (hackinglawpractice.com)
